Universities as Arbitrary Nonsense Machines
In their present configuration, no-one needs them but the powers-that-be
I don’t like the content of the below piece, but just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean we may avoid talking about it. I’m writing these lines not just because I loath this development (and I’m complicit due to being, well, a university professor), but to highlight one of the crucial components of where, how, and why, exactly, ‘the Science™’ during the the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ took a series of wrong turns.
Wrong, that is, in terms of the pursuit of empirically replicable results that are communicated in a transparent manner.
Wrong, which also relates to the integrity and character of those who made, and continue to make, patently absurd, if not outright fraudulent, claims.
So, down yet another rabbit hole we go, in my translation and with emphases added.
Canceled Lectures, Occupied Auditoriums: How Much Political Discourse Can the University Tolerate?
Universities sometimes have to balance between academic demands and political rights. Depending on the situation, different rules apply [i.e., arbitrariness, not the rule of law, governs this]
By Theo Anders, Der Standard, 22 March 2024 [source]
The diagnoses regarding the current academic atmosphere vary widely. The majority of students today are too conformist and too apolitical, complain some older students who reminisce about former high phases of student rebellion. Other observers, however, complain about the increasing politicisation of universities, which is evident, for example, in the left-wing jargon that dominates humanities institutes [if it only were ‘jargon’…]. Activist [orig. umtriebig] student groups are demanding that politically offensive figures should not be given ‘a stage’ at the university—a demand that the other side interprets as a dangerous ‘narrowing’ of the intellectual terrain [if it only were that, because the problem is freedom of speech per se, not a narrowing thereof].
Tensions Between Systems
The appropriate relationship between universities and political discourses seems to be difficult to find. There is a certain amount of friction in the fundamental differences between the two systems: scientific questions can be resolved (at least approximately [speak for yourself, Mr. Anders]) through empirical data and conclusive arguments. However, value judgments that lie behind all political objectives cannot be proven or refuted by facts alone [oh, look, ‘the Science™’ isn’t settled]. In science, the opinion of experts deserves more visibility and relevance than the opinion of laypeople [that is duplicitous and, frankly, outright wrong: opinions don’t matter, empirical facts do—an expert’s opinion is about as irrelevant as a laypersons’s]; in the political arena, every vote counts equally.
However, it is also obvious that these two spheres cannot always be strictly separated in the complex cosmos of a university, which is more than just a research institution funded by the government [also wrong, because who funds the gov’t in the first place: taxpayers], and extends to habilitations and appointments of professors, in which elected student union [orig. Hochschülerschaft] representatives can have a say. Internal university politics, so to speak, which usually runs remarkably quietly with its established rules of the game.
Who invites whom where?
Selective constellations in which the spheres really [sic] interact around already heated political issues provide more explosive material: when a professor from his academic position invites a political activist to give a lecture directly in his course (as in the case of [famous 2nd-generation feminist activist] Alice Schwarzer at the Angewandte [Fine Arts Academy, which, as the linked piece clearly shows, was agitated against by, oh what a surprise, labelling the ‘she’s a trans-phone’ diatribe]). Or when student representatives organise the appearance of a propagandist, which is supposed to take place outside of academic teaching, but in a lecture hall in the middle of the university (as in the case of [Wikipedia describes him as a ‘journalist and far-right activist’—Götz Kubitschek at the University of Vienna) [as if the two are the same: it’s one thing to have a guest lecture in one’s course but another one for students or anyone to rent facilities, just sayin’; also, remember this one]. But how can universities deal with such complications and how do they actually react? A small guide through the rules and practice [note that Der Standard is a notoriously left-radical-woke paper]:
Party Politics
If the university management has its way, the upcoming National Council [parliament] election campaign must avoid the lecture halls [the president of the U of Vienna is a German art historian by the name of Sebastian Schütze]. They usually act restrictively when it comes to the allocation of rooms. At the University of Vienna it is already enshrined in the statutes that party political activity is to be avoided in its institutions [that is, as long as it comes from non-faculty or non-student associations]. Others, such as the University of Innsbruck, stipulate in guidelines that rooms may only be rented out for external events if they have a connection to university tasks. If there is a ‘connection with political activities’, the Rectorate must also grant explicit permission [so at least we know where the buck stops].
Student Union Reps with a Lot of Freedom [sic]
Due to the strong legal position of the Student Union [orig. Hochschülerschaft, or ÖH], there is an important exception, which means that political events can take place in lecture halls quite easily. According to the Student Union Act, ÖH factions with elected representatives are allowed to use university rooms as long as they are not occupied [needless to mention, most Student Unions are ‘governed’ by coalitions of centre-left, Green, and various shades of Communist factions, which also means that you know who they like to invite]. You just have to report this to the university in advance, but the Rectorate cannot prevent the appearance of questionable speakers for political reasons. On this basis, the FPÖ-affiliated Ring of Freedom Students [orig. Ring Freiheitlicher Studenten], which holds a mandate in the nationwide student parliament, wanted to hoist the prominent German right-wing extremist Götz Kubitschek onto a podium at the University of Vienna in November. According to the rectorate, however, the RFS had made a formal error and had not reported Kubitschek’s participation in time, meaning that the event could be banned. Kubitschek gave a lecture at the FPÖ parliamentary club instead [see what I mean: of the two examples cited by Mr. Anders above, only one was politically-inspired censorship; the other one was a-o.k., at least as long as statutory options are considered].
Universities May Invite and Exclude
The rectorate or the departments can, as a matter of course, also plan discussions outside of official teaching and invite people from outside. If [of the kind generated by, left-woke rags, such as Der Standard or worse] public outrage spreads about an announced speaker, university officials are faced with a delicate balance: go ahead anyway, disinvite the controversial person, or cancel the event entirely? From a legal perspective, all of these options are equally permissible, so these considerations are primarily about the self-image and image that a university wants to cultivate [but not all of these options are a good idea].
The Academy of Fine Arts, which invited the [far-leftish] Greek former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to present his new book on capitalism [sic], reacted in an ambivalent manner in the fall. Since Varoufakis did not want to condemn the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel in advance of his appearance, the university canceled the presentation at short notice and unilaterally [we’ve seen these shenanigans recently as Greek conductor Teodor Currentzi’s was ‘cancelled’ from the Vienna Art Festival because he didn’t likewise ‘take a stand’]. Rhetorically, however, the university pretended that it was just a temporal ‘postponement’ and explained: ‘The relevant debate space will be reopened as soon as the political situation allows constructive, confrontational dialogues again.’ [cowards, that’s all I’m sayin’; also, why cannot we have a public debate about strong anti-Jewish sentiments apparently held by certain segments of ‘the Left’?]
Politicising Professors in Lectures
You quickly experience teachers who intersperse their own political stance in their courses. Most of them respect student disagreement and also take opposing viewpoints into account—in the best case scenario, this results in entertaining discussions. But if a teacher enjoys the role of political provocateur too much, the actual purpose of a course gets undermined [it’s called ‘generative themes’, derives from Marxisante ‘scholar’ Paulo Freire’s ‘pedagogy’, which holds sway over Western colleges of education, and it’s only ‘bad’ if the right-wingers do it, not if Marxist professors do so].
One person who was repeatedly accused of this by students was the now retired historian Lothar Höbelt. The FPÖ-affiliated professor flirted with trivialisations of fascism at the lectern [what is the statutory definition of ‘flirting with trivialisations’, by the way, Mr. Anders?] at the University of Vienna and liked to play with right-wing radical codes. Because Höbelt had a valid teaching license and was not guilty of any criminal offense, his lectures were protected by academic freedom [see how the framing works? Just accuse anyone of whatever, and the only way ‘journos’ are protected from defamation or libel suits is by adding the little factoid that Mr. Höbelt hasn’t committed any crime]. The university management therefore had no legal grounds to prevent Höbelt's presence—and did not do so.
Posters During Classes
In the traditional manner, students can use posters to convey pointed slogans to the academic audience. Anyone who hangs up their posters on the toilet or in the seminar room on their own runs the risk of them disappearing soon. The university's house rules stipulate that posters may only be stuck on designated areas and must be approved in advance by the Rectorate [the responsible ‘adults in the room’, right?]. Rectorates usually also reserve the right to remove notices if they find the content to be unreasonable [no guidelines or anything but the rectorate’s opinions are necessary to determine this]. In the current Middle East conflict, the rectorate of the Academy of Fine Arts felt compelled to have anti-Israel posters removed from the foyer [and ban Mr. Varoufakis for not saying anything].
Occupy, Gather, Block
Staying collectively in prestigious university spaces promises more effort, but also more attention to student concerns. The last major university policy discourse in Austria was triggered by the lecture hall occupations of the ‘Uni is Burning’ [orig. #unibrennt] movement in 2009, and the climate policy-motivated occupations of ‘Earth is Burning’ [orig. #erdebrennt] also caused quite a stir at the end of 2022 [shamelessly advertising one’s intellectual nakedness, if you’d ask me]. In such cases, the rectorates can assert their house rules and call the police to have their lecture halls cleared [this has to do with the original university charter of pre-Reformation institutions that created a distinct legal space within the city walls, with the rector being in charge and police must, if there isn’t a ‘clear and present danger’ (e.g., active shooters) always get the rector’s permission to enter the premises]. In practice, however, they often act more cautiously and let the students have their way—probably not to further inflame the protest [remember, only ‘the protest’ the rectorate supports].
However, at the Vienna University of Technology reacted harshly in 2019: after around a hundred students took over the ballroom in order to influence the turquoise-green coalition negotiators, the rector quickly called the police, who manoeuvred the people out of the building. A prevention of discourse that the Constitutional Court later classified as unlawful. The Constitutional Court ruled that even if a blockade of university premises was resorted to without warning at a political meeting, the executive branch should not dissolve it so carelessly [so much for suppression of political views].
Bottom Lines
If it weren’t that stupid and misleading, I wouldn’t put this piece up.
More freedom of speech is always better than less freedom of speech.
The problem is the left-to-far-left political tilt of faculty members. I’m not saying right-to-far-right tilt would be better in any way, shape, or form. But we can clearly observe the twisting and turning of Mr. Anders in trying to explain how one kind of action is a-o.k. (Ms. Schwarzer getting cancelled due to, among others, Tran$ activists) while the other (Mr. Kubitschek getting cancelled due to a ‘wrongful’ application form) are one and the same issue.
We also learn that university leaders hold a lot of unchecked power over whatever goes on, and that there’s a lot of far-leftist activism supported by many faculty members, esp. in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Very implicitly, Paulo Freire’s ‘pedagogy’ is alluded to when it comes to what renders ‘right-wing’ professors liable for termination. If ‘left-wing’ faculty members do so, it’s a-o.k. because none of the activist student busybodies will ever complain (that is, they may complain the professor is not as radical as they are).
The silly example of Lothar Höbelt who is, even in retirement (!), accused—defamed—as a ‘trivialiser’ of ‘fascism’ although, apparently, ‘the university management has no legal grounds’ for taking action against him is telling enough.
Full disclosure: I’ve listened to some lectures two decades ago; while I’m unsure we’re ‘friends’, I know him personally. He’s an outspoken, very productive, and equally approachable scholar. He’s by the way married to a Czech and lives in Czechia, the country that had expelled from their dwellings his parents in 1945/46. Still, the way ‘around’ this was, as a former Chair of the History Dept. put it, they always put up some other professor’s lectures at the exact same time to offer ‘choices’ to the students: I call this praxis ‘disgusting’ and ‘uncollegial’.
Make of Höbelt’s case what you will.
In the final analysis, the situation as described above is virtually mirrored all across Germany and Switzerland. Universities are rapidly turning into ‘think tanks’ dominated by administrators, with research, teaching, and supervision taking a backseat.
At the same time, excessive regulation in Europe prevents the flowering of non-public universities that actually teach students valuable skills and prepare them for whatever comes later in their lives.
It will get worse, way worse, before anything changes. Universities as bastions of free enquiry and teaching are a thing of the past. Dominated by radical activists—among students, administrators, and faculty—freedom of expression and research is under severe pressure.
If I’d be in charge of a rich country right now, I’d be doing the exact opposite: safeguard freedom of expression and the academy, foster a culture of debate, and work towards offering refuge to those academics who will, in short order, be pushed out of mainstream academia.
Is there such a ‘republic of letters’ anywhere to be seen?