When? Thursday, 2 May, 2-6 p.m.

Where? FU Berlin, lecture theatre B, Henry-Ford-Bau, Garystr. 35.

A conference organised by the Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin (MFFB) and Chaverim@FU - Network for Jewish Issues.

Greetings from MFFB and Chaverim@FU

Please register at seminar@mideastfreedomforum.org.

PART 1

2- 3.45 pm "A critical theory of academic freedom against academic antisemitism" - lecture by Jahne Nicolaisen

Based on his master's thesis[1], Jahne Nicolaisen will first discuss the concept of academic antisemitism and then explain how antisemitism adapts to the academic field, coveting, despising and threatening academic freedom. He will then present the central theses of his outline of a critical theory of academic freedom. The following questions will be addressed with reference to Adorno and Horkheimer: Why does the institutional self-regulation of science regularly fail? What does it mean for a critical theory that not every form of anti-Semitism is equally resisted? What does the systemic reproduction of anti-Semitism mean for liberal theories that rely on the rule of law, on responsible and democratic citizens and on university self-regulation? What position do humanistic academic norms and academic structural principles (Merton) have in a critical theory of academic freedom? What theoretical consequences can be drawn from the fact that anti-Semitism is also reproduced in free academic opinion? And what subjectivity is formal academic freedom dependent on?

• Jahne Nicolaisen works as a programme director in the project "Bildungsbaustein Israel" and on the topics of antisemitism, Islamism and right-wing extremism at the Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin(MFFB). He wrote his master's thesis in political science at Freie Universität Berlin in 2023, in which he outlines a critical theory of academic freedom against anti-Semitism. Nicolaisen is also a member of the university group Chaverim@FU - Network for Jewish Issues.

With a commentary by Dr Dennis Wutzke

• DrDennis Wutzke was a visiting professor for Critical Social Theory at JLU Giessen for the third time in the winter semester 2023/24. He has been a lecturer in political theory at Freie Universität since 2012 and was a research assistant for philosophy in Rostock in 2013-17 and for political science in Berlin in 2020-21.

PART 2

4:15-6 pm "For free academic work and study - problems and measures against anti-Semitism at German universities" - panel discussion with Hanna Veiler (JSUD), Prof. Dr Friederike Lorenz-Sinai and Prof. Dr Martin Heger

The aim is to bring together different (academic) perspectives from research on anti-Semitism, academic freedom and freedom to study, university education and our own experience. Furthermore, we would like to analyse the current problem of academic anti-Semitism in Germany and discuss specific measures and indirect practices against anti-Semitism at German universities.

• Hanna Veiler has been President of the Jewish Student Union Germany (JSUD) since May 2023 and as such experiences the alarming situation at German universities for Jewish students on a daily basis. As a representative, she talks about possible countermeasures and current Jewish campus life in Germany. She has been studying art history in Tübingen since 2018. She also gives workshops and lectures on anti-Semitism, racism, post-Soviet history and critical remembrance culture. Interviews with and articles by her have recently appeared in numerous German media and on Instagram (hannaesther__).

• Prof. Dr. Friederike Lorenz-Sinai ist Professorin für Methoden der Sozialen Arbeit und Sozialarbeitsforschung an der Fachhochschule Potsdam und Vorstandsmitglied von „OFEK e.V. – Beratungsstellen bei antisemitischer Gewalt und Diskriminierung“. Sie ist Mitglied der deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziale Arbeit (DGSA) und der deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (DGfE). Zu ihren aktuellen Forschungsschwerpunkten zählen Antisemitismus in institutionellen Kontexten sowie (sexualisierte) Gewalt und soziale Prozesse der Aufarbeitung. Sie arbeitet am „Kompetenzzentrum für antisemitismuskritische Bildung und Forschung“ der ZWST, wo sie an einem Forschungsprojekt zu „Auswirkungen des Terrors vom 7. Oktober 2023 auf jüdische und israelische Communities in Deutschland“ beteiligt ist. Einen Einblick in die Arbeit mit Hochschulen gegen den aktuellen Antisemitismus gibt folgendes Interview mit ihr und Marina Chernivsky: https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/unsere-woche/limitiertes-verstaendnis/ (24. März 2024).

• Prof Dr Martin Heger is Professor of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, European Criminal Law and Modern Legal History at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. He is currently researching in the joint project "Struggling for Justice. Anti-Semitism as a Judicial Challenge"(ASJust). His research focuses on German and European environmental and economic criminal law, questions of criminal policy, the relationship of (criminal) law to religion, history and sport, the influence of European and constitutional law and the ECHR on criminal procedure law as well as aspects of victim protection. He is deputy chairman of the Berlin Academic Society (BWG), a member of the Berlin Institute for Islamic Theology (BIT), on the academic advisory board of the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin and, since 2009, spokesman for the Berlin Studies on Jewish Law (BSJR). In April 2024, Heger published an article on "Antisemitism as a challenge for German criminal law. A legal-historical look 'back to the future'" in the volume "Antisemitismus und Recht. Interdisciplinary Approaches" (edited by Christoph Schuch).

Report on the conference 
Part 1: Lecture and commentary 

Professor Alexander Libman (FU Berlin), Dr Ulrike Becker (MFFB) and Rahel (Chaverim@FU) welcomed around 50 participants to the conference ‘Academic anti-Semitism - academic and practical perspectives’ on 2 May at the FU Berlin, which was organised by the MFFB, Chaverim@FU and Professor Libman. Jahne Nicolaisen (MFFB/Chaverim@FU) opened the conference with the lecture ‘A
critical theory of academic freedom against anti-Semitism’. Nicolaisen outlined some elements of such a critical theory: Firstly, the specific nature of academic anti-Semitism must be analysed theoretically and empirically. Secondly, liberal norms that guide institutional practices of academic freedom in Germany should be defended against their anti-Semitic instrumentalisation. Thirdly, between the poles of scientific idealism and organisational-cultural neutrality, a critical theory has to develop a scientific practice that does not merely seek to functionalise criticism for its own purposes or draw direct practical instructions from it, but directs criticism at its own scientific forms, institutions and social conditions. A critical theory has to explore why the academic majority regularly remains silent, ignores and relativises academic anti-Semitism (cf. open letter from ‘University lecturers against anti-Semitism on campus’ of 7 April). Fourthly, such a critical theory would ‘practise academic freedom from within’ (Horkheimer 1953) in the awareness of social negativity. Fifthly, it is important to fulfil Adorno's categorical imperative after National Socialism and the Shoah to ‘organise their thinking and actions in such a way that Auschwitz is not repeated, that nothing similar happens’ (1966). These and other elements can be read in detail here: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/42137 (german, Nicolaisen 2023).

In his commentary, Dr Dennis Wutzke emphasised firstly that Nicolaisen is trying to understand how dominant academic self-regulations (liberal ‘idealist’ and value-neutral ‘positivist’) systematically make themselves immune to academic anti-Semitism.
How exactly and why would require more precise research. To this end, he suggested a comparison of the fields of science and art, with a thesis on their activist anti-Semitic tendencies, whereby actors in both fields invoke negative rights of defence, but in their own practice erase in advance what these rights are supposed to make possible: ‘Science as activism is as little open-ended as a purely activist work of art is a bearer of aesthetic intrinsic quality and ambiguity’. Secondly, Wutzke emphasised that Nicolaisen convincingly shows that ‘academic anti-Semitism - including and especially Israel-related anti-Semitism - in its antagonistic, divisive predetermination is itself a massive attack on academic freedom’ - but then critically asked what analytical and practical value the reference to the self-contradictions of academic anti-Semitism has. Thirdly, he suggested incorporating Adorno's late critique of activism, ‘pseudo-activity’ and fetishised practice in order to understand anti-Semitic activism on campus. Fourthly, Wutzke urged caution not to allow the ‘cogent radical Frankfurt reflection on the irrationality of capitalist society’, which repeatedly gives rise to anti-Semitism as a ‘regressive revolt’ (Grigat), to slide into a verbal radicalism that no longer makes any distinction between authoritarian regimes, mass murderous terrorist groups and democratic, liberal states. For Adorno and Horkheimer, criticising the irrationality of society ‘led neither theoretically nor biographically to contempt for civil liberties, but rather to a deeper knowledge of their endangerment’.

With the following concluding thesis, Wutzke continued his own thoughts on the deterioration of left-wing social theory (see the event ‘When critique goes bad’ on 13 April in Giessen): ‘In order to understand how anti-Semitism makes itself scientifically compatible, we have to understand what has become of “critique”. But: anyone who expresses hatred of Jews has not simply misunderstood critical social philosophy or read bad theories’. This led to a discussion with the audience and finally to the break.

Part 2: Panel discussion

The panel discussion then began (entitled ‘For free academic work and study’) with Hanna Veiler (JSUD), Prof. Dr Martin Heger (HU Berlin) and Prof. Dr Friederike Lorenz-Sinai (FH Potsdam) on the problem of academic anti-Semitism and the central question of what should be done about it.
Hanna Veiler from the Jewish Student Union of Germany described how Jewish students are generally left alone by their university administrations every day when they criticise anti-Semitism. Many Jewish students are afraid to go on campus at all. Veiler criticised the fact that there is too little monitoring, too little research and too little knowledge about anti-Semitism in the general population, but also at universities.

She emphasised that the university management is ultimately responsible. In some cases, she had to explain the basics of anti-Semitism research to them. However, some administrations reacted in an exemplary manner after 7 October - the majority did not: ‘The way universities deal with anti-Semitism is mostly characterised by chaotic ad-hoc reactions, which usually do not take those affected seriously and are far too often surprised that there is anti-Semitism at all. There is a lack of protocol on what to do if there is an anti-Semitic incident. There is therefore a need for mandatory training for university staff - especially teaching staff - on anti-Semitism in all its manifestations, especially Israel-related anti-Semitism, as this is the most common form of anti-Semitism at German universities. Just as it is normal for companies to provide certain training programmes for employees, it must also become normal for universities to provide training on anti-Semitism for anyone who wants to work there.

She is also calling for mandatory courses for teacher training programmes. Discussions about academic freedom generally serve to shift the discourse, she says, in order to ward off criticism of anti-Semitism - the situation is similar with sexism and racism. The debate driven by Berlin student representatives and anti-Semitic groups about the reintroduction of disciplinary law at Berlin universities also ‘quickly shifted the focus away from the anti-Semitic act against Lahav Shapira’, while ignoring the fact that until 2021 there was a disciplinary law that rarely led to exmatriculation. To the objection that the law invited abuse, especially if the AfD came to power, she replied that with an AfD government ‘we are all at ***** anyway’. The reactions after anti-Semitic acts of violence would shift too quickly from the problem of anti-Semitism to the repressive measures taken by the authorities in order to distract from the problem. With regard to the FU Berlin's handling of the anti-Semitic attack on Lahav Shapira, she criticised the fact that the first statement did not clearly name the anti-Semitism and that Jewish students suddenly had to prove the anti-Semitic motive. Instead, a supposed ‘dispute’ was trivialised in the media for days. Overall, she notes that universities are first and foremost interested in their reputation. Many therefore only act when the media report.

At the FU, she criticised the fact that the FU's anti-Semitism commissioner does not appear in public by name, but remains anonymous, while Jewish students at the FU hide - unlike at the HU, where the commissioner Prof. Feierstein is known. Finally, Veiler said that in the fight against anti-Semitism on campus, e.g. in student parliaments, it is particularly important to convince moderate or undecided bystanders, as radicalised groups with a closed world view can usually no longer be reached. She said that without mandatory training on Israel-related anti-Semitism, not much can be expected from student parliaments.

Prof. Dr Friederike Lorenz-Sinai from the Potsdam University of Applied Sciences and from ‘OFEK - Counselling Centres on Anti-Semitic Violence and Discrimination’ compared how the police, schools and universities deal with the issue in their contributions. She emphasised that there was a lack of qualitative studies on how university lecturers perceive and deal with anti-Semitism - and that it is not a living part of their professional understanding today.

According to Lorenz-Sinai, the problem at universities is that elementary principles of counselling and support for those affected by anti-Semitism - unlike in the case of sexualised violence, for example - are not adhered to: For example, the full name of anti-Semitism officers must be accessible to those affected; those affected must be taken seriously. As many anti-Semitic statements fall below the threshold of criminal offences, solid reporting structures are essential for those affected. Problems with the current reporting structures include a dominance of the logic of proof and quantification and a lack of understanding of what anti-Semitism is. Instead, training is needed to raise awareness of anti-Semitism. In comparison to other institutions such as schools and the police, Lorenz-Sinai made it clear that the topic of anti-Semitism in a strongly self-governing institution such as the university fluctuates between the poles of taboo and omnipresence and that positions of responsibility often first have to organise visibility and legitimacy. It is also characteristic of the institutional logic that universities are places of open debate, from which Israel-demonising attitudes currently benefit again if these attitudes are sharply contradicted as expected, whereby the former in turn see their self-image as resistant and rebellious confirmed and departments/faculties would not immediately see that it is about protection against violence and discrimination and not about freedom of expression.
It is crucial that the existing reporting structures are better trained. In addition, liaison lecturers and external counselling structures are also needed.
Universities need to work with those affected to develop an institutional protection concept that enables Jewish students to participate in a preventative manner and defines action steps for interventions and possible sanctions. It is crucial that a protection concept is developed independently of the intentions of the anti-Semitic actors: there needs to be a separation between the effects of demonstrations, activities, etc. that are experienced as anti-Semitic on the one hand and the intentions of the people taking part in them on the other.
If Jewish students or lecturers want to defend themselves, it is important to look for allies and go directly to the management, as they are ultimately responsible. She also recommends seeking external counselling, e.g. from OFEK, and developing protection concepts together with the management. In the case of Lahav Shapira, she found that the systematic online bullying began with the marking of enemies in university rooms and radicalised into violence. Not only he, but also his family was exposed in the media and a perpetrator-victim reversal took place in the debate.

Prof Dr Martin Heger - a lawyer - said right at the beginning not to overdo it with the ‘legalities’: You don't have to do everything you are legally allowed to do. The legal component must be set aside from an ethical one. Universities and academics have the opportunity to sanction anti-Semitic behaviour below the threshold of criminal liability by justifying it ethically.

Asked about the debate on the reintroduction of the law of order at Berlin universities, he cited three reasons why the anti-Semitic offence was quickly distracted from and why the reintroduction was ‘painted like a devil on the wall’ by Berlin student councils and various university groups: Firstly, many student councils are very left-wing and serve a certain clientele; secondly, certain anti-Israel student groups are instrumentalising the political debate for their own agenda; and thirdly, Heger suspects that some AStA members may themselves be afraid of becoming the target of the new regulatory law. However, the regulatory law is not so new: it was abolished in 2021, having previously functioned without problems for decades. In response to the question of whether there is now a ‘parallel justice system’, Heger said ‘a little bit’, although there are consequences under both university and criminal law for rape or other offences. Furthermore, there are also sanction options in university law in other cases each semester, e.g. anyone who does not pay their semester fees will be exmatriculated. The fact that a campaign is suddenly launched against regulatory law only in the case of anti-Semitism shows an absurd double standard.

Heger also criticised the fact that anti-Semitism is constantly trivialised, even among colleagues in the legal profession. On the question of when the law can help at all, he said that it helps when it is used for what it was created for. He also criticised the fact that the synagogue burning was not clearly classified as anti-Semitic by a court in Wuppertal (2014). There is also a fatal tendency towards trivialisation in the courts. Heger recommended that anti-Semitism officers are needed at courts in order to recognise the specifics. For a future proactive approach in jurisprudence, he recommended making anti-Semitism, Jewish religion and Jewish law an important research topic, on which different (legal) academic perspectives could then be found.
On the question of whether the call for extermination against a recognised nation state should become a criminal offence, Heger was cautious: no special law should be created, even if it were true that in Germany calls for extermination are almost only made against Israel. It would also be politically sensitive to only include nation states recognised in Germany, as it would then be possible to call for the annihilation of Palestine without criminal consequences. In conclusion, Heger said on the difference between the HU and FU in dealing with anti-Semitism that at the FU it was clearly up to the management, the current president. He had the ultimate responsibility and was not fulfilling it.

[1] Masterarbeit Nicolaisen: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/42137