The 19 February 2025 marks the fifth anniversary of the Hanau terror attack, a heinous act of violence perpetrated by a far-right extremist whose racist ideology culminated in the killing of nine people of colour. This atrocity was not an isolated event but rather a symptom of the rise of far-right extremism in Germany.<\/p>\n
Amid this already distressing context, yet another alarming development underscores the erosion of democratic values in Germany. The Free University of Berlin cancelled<\/u><\/a> a scheduled event featuring United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (UN SR Albanese) and Professor Eyal Weizman (University of London), Director of \u2018Forensic Architecture\u2019 at Goldsmiths. This decision follows a similar stance adopted by the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, which had cancelled<\/u><\/a> an event featuring UN SR Albanese initially set to take place on 16 February 2025.<\/p>\n Both cancellations occurred amid growing political pressure, with several State officials, including the Mayor of Berlin<\/u><\/a>, Berlin\u2019s Minister of Science<\/u><\/a>, and Bavaria\u2019s State Commissioner<\/u><\/a> for Jewish Life and the Fight against Antisemitism, publicly condemning Albanese, accusing her of antisemitism. The official justification for both cancellations was cited as \u2018<\/em>security concerns<\/em>\u2019<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>[see here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>]. Yet, the circumstances strongly suggest that these decisions were, in reality, bowing to political pressure rather than addressing genuine threats to public safety.<\/p>\n It appears that only a limited number of legal professor<\/u><\/a>s at the Free University of Berlin expressed concern over the decision to cancel the event. They opted to emphasise their distancing from antisemitic positions, thereby implicitly conceding to the allegations directed at UN SR Albanese, suggesting that her statements could, at least in part<\/em>, be interpreted as antisemitic.<\/p>\n It is worth acknowledging, however, that a number of professors at the Free University of Berlin took it upon themselves to actively pursue the organisation of the event despite its cancellation. Their determination ensured that the event ultimately took place at bUm Berlin in Kreuzberg. Their efforts were commendably supported by student associations from the Free University as well as other political organisations.<\/p>\n Yet, the presence of heavy policing during the event that I attended in person contributed to an atmosphere of intimidation. Police officers were visibly stationed at the back of the room, casting a palpable sense of surveillance over the proceedings. In addition, the event was live-streamed [see here<\/u><\/a>], allowing interested students to participate remotely from the premises of the Free University. Notably, police were also present at the premises of the university during this broadcast, further underscoring the tense and restrictive environment surrounding the event.<\/p>\n Moreover, the police intended to disperse the gathering at the Free University before the event had concluded. It was only due to the persistent efforts\u00a0 of a few dedicated professors that this was prevented, ensuring that the event was allowed to continue until its scheduled end. This incident not only illustrates the level of pressure exerted on those seeking to engage in open academic dialogue but also highlights the essential role of committed professors and scholars in defending academic freedom.<\/p>\n A statement was recently released on Freitag<\/u><\/a> by science associations and non-governmental organisations, explicitly stating that these cancellations \u2018are part of a series of measures against people who name and criticize documented violence and warfare in violation of international law in Palestine by the Israeli government and its support by Germany.\u2019\u00a0This pointed observation underscores the systematic suppression of critical discourse on international law and human rights, particularly when it concerns Palestine.<\/p>\n In a blog post<\/u><\/a> on Verfassungsblog<\/em>, Isabel Feichtner expressed her frustration and deep concern over the erosion of academic freedom, stating that she chooses to speak out \u2018<\/em>even if this means losing some friends and funding.<\/em>\u2019<\/em> Her statement underscores the stark reality of academic freedom in Germany today, where taking a principled, outspoken position can come at a professional [see here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>] and personal cost.<\/p>\n However, it remains noteworthy and concerning that the majority of German legal scholarship, particularly from the community of international legal scholars, has been largely absent from this discourse \u2013 with a few voices who did speak out, most of whom were BIPoC scholars who did so at notable risk. This overwhelming lack of response is not merely unsettling. It signals tacit approval, reflecting a broader and deeply troubling sentiment that these acts, which may only be qualified as censorship<\/em>, are justified.<\/p>\n This development is not only alarming but also evokes deeply unsettling historical parallels. It recalls a time that many believed had been consigned to history, when German universities engaged in Selbstgleichschaltung<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>(self-synchronisation), willingly aligning themselves with authoritarian political ideologies [see here<\/u><\/a>]. The complicity of academic institutions in serving oppressive State agendas once facilitated terror, persecution, and the destruction of entire communities. The silence, or worse, the tacit endorsement, of today\u2019s institutions in the face of political coercion suggests that the lessons of the past are being dangerously disregarded.<\/p>\n This is occurring despite the constitutional safeguards meticulously established by the framers of the Grundgesetz<\/em> (Federal German Constitution), who, in light of the harrowing experiences of universities under the Nazi regime, sought to prevent the recurrence of State-imposed ideological conformity within academic institutions. As a direct response to this historical imperative, academic freedom was explicitly enshrined in Article 5 of the Grundgesetz<\/em>, positioned prominently within the text to underscore its foundational significance for democratic governance and the rule of law. The deliberate inclusion of this protection reflects a clear commitment to ensuring that universities remain spaces for independent thought, critical inquiry, and open debate \u2013 free from political interference.<\/p>\n The cancellation of both events featuring an esteemed international scholar, who also holds a mandate as a UN SR appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, constitutes a serious violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to academic freedom. Such a measure cannot be justified solely on the basis of vague, unsubstantiated security concerns.<\/p>\n Germany\u2019s constitutional order is firmly rooted in the principle of the rule of law, which does not per se<\/em> preclude State interference with constitutionally protected rights, including academic freedom. However, any such interference is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny and must meet the requirements of justification under the principle of proportionality. Under established constitutional doctrine, limitations on fundamental rights and freedoms are only permissible if they serve a legitimate aim, are suitable and necessary to achieve that aim, and maintain a proper balance between the conflicting constitutional interests at stake.<\/p>\n In this case, the invocation of security concerns, without clear and compelling evidence of an actual, imminent, and concrete danger or threat, fails to satisfy these stringent constitutional requirements. The principle of proportionality demands that any restriction on academic freedom be justified by the need to protect another constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom of equal or higher rank. Mere speculative concerns or political sensitivities do not suffice to override a fundamental right enshrined in Article 5 of the Grundgesetz<\/em>.\u00a0Otherwise, fundamental rights and freedoms would cease to enjoy their constitutionally enshrined primacy and would, instead, become subject to a general presumption pro <\/em>securitate<\/em>, a presumption in favour of security rather than individual liberty.<\/p>\n Furthermore, these developments must be understood within the broader context of the silence of German universities regarding the ongoing proceedings<\/u><\/a> before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), initiated by South Africa against Israel on allegations of genocide. In its order<\/u><\/a> of 26 January 2024, the ICJ determined that the claims presented by South Africa were prima facie<\/em> plausible and that Israel may plausibly be committing acts constituting genocide. This ruling, carrying significant legal and moral weight, should have prompted rigorous academic engagement, particularly within German universities and among international legal scholars. Yet, there has been a lack of discourse, accompanied by a notable absence of scrutiny concerning the German government\u2019s ongoing military support to Israel through arms exports. This matter has also been the subject of contentious proceedings before the ICJ, culminating in the order<\/u><\/a> of 30 April 2024, where the Court seized the opportunity to \u2018remind all States of their international obligations regarding the transfer of arms to parties involved in armed conflicts [\u2026] [which are equally] incumbent upon Germany as a State party [\u2026] in its supply of arms to Israel\u2019 <\/em>[see p. 8 para. 24].<\/p>\n This silence raises urgent and fundamental questions. What responsibilities do academics and academic institutions bear in times of grave humanitarian and legal crises? Should universities not serve as the primary arenas where such pressing and complex legal and ethical issues are debated and critically<\/em>\u00a0assessed? The refusal to address these issues is not merely an act of omission but may amount to complicity<\/em> in what can only be described as scholasticide<\/em>, the systematic suppression of intellectual inquiry and critical debate on matters of profound legal and political significance [see here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>].<\/p>\n