Category: Artur’s Statements

Amnesty International cares about the Forgotten Prisoner? Forget about it.

Amnesty International and the Forgotten Prisoner? Forget about it.

Today, amnesty international stands with the Sheriff of Nottingham, not with Robin Hood.

Political correctness gives a **** about free speech

In the turmoil of the second gulf war (Iraq invasion by Bush Sr. & friends) I became one of the many people who wanted to work against injustice. I joined amnesty international in Aachen and offered all my volunteer capacities in the years 1993 – 1996 for Gruppe 1517. We were the coordination group for cases in Cameroon and we also were in charge of the case of a former police officer in Laos who served arrest – with his family – in a re-education camp in a remote place near Sop Pan where there was no real chance for fleeing.

I participated in countless urgent actions. Amnesty international starts an urgent action when a person becomes arrested on the mere assumption that he or she is a prisoner of conscience. Amnesty international’s original mission is to care for those people who disappear when police or other government forces take hold of the person and put them in a regular prison or to some hidden place where nobody can find them and thus nobody can get into contact with them.

History shows that sometimes tens of thousands of people can disappear this way because they side with the wrong party in their country. Well-known examples are Argentina, Chile or Guatemala. Today it is common and verified knowledge that military kidnapped left-wing students, put them in helicopters and threw them from high altitude into the Ocean from. Others were killed in mass shootings, as we can know from mass graves found in the provinces throughout Latin America.

Children were separated from their parents when these were suspected of communist activities including simple opposition against the government, or working for the labour union, and the parents were brutally murdered and the children, orphans, given away for adoption to families who were leaders in the country. Particularly the police and military from countries in Central America are know to have been trained the dirty war on its own population by the experts in The School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia (USA).

With these lessons learnt, amnesty international, once they became aware that someone was taken prisoner because of their political activities, they send out letters worldwide to their branches and call for an urgent action. Supporters of amnesty international then write letters and faxes to the Police Chiefs, to the Prosecutors, to the Ambassadors, to the Presidents, to the Dictators asking for the release of the prisoner or at least for fair trial proceedings under public observation. The urgent actions help to make sure that such forgotten prisoner does not become tortured and killed by the police.

Often, these urgent actions show some success, because the government or forces who arrested someone (a prisoner of conscience) realized now that they are under observation world wide. It is one instrument of intimidation to silently remove people from the public and jail them somewhere. This tactics is known from the NKWD in the Soviet Union, form the Gestapo in Hitler-Deutschland and  from the Stasi in post WW2 Eastern-Germany.

On 25 May 2018, Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, also known under the alias Tommy Robinson, was arrested in Leeds by the British Police as he was life streaming when reporting in the neighbourhood of the Crown Court in Leeds.

Tommy Robinson is a right wing activist who has been rallying for several years for creating awareness of what is known as “grooming gangs” in the United Kingdom. Men of oriental descent, many from Pakistan and of Islam faith, have organised for several decades the sexual exploitation of young girls in the united Kingdom.

The UK police, the justice system, the social welfare organisations and the politics, the government and also the press, the media had turned a blind eye on what is known now as systematic rape of youngsters and children by a group of men which can statistically easy be stereotyped.

Only recently some action was taken, but those officials who spoke out about this horrific crimes run in danger of losing their position. Tommy Robinson has become an activist in this matter and relied constantly, also because one of his relatives had become a victim of one of these “grooming gangs”.

He was arrested by Police because of contempt of court, because of breach of peace. The same day he was sentenced by the judge for 13 months prison time. This is certainly interesting because the courts have taken years before they were ready to jail rapists, at least some of them. But to jail someone who openly complaints about the lack of justice takes only one day – when it is someone Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon.

Therefore I was counting on amnesty international to step in and release an urgent action, particularly because the judge had released a gag order about the case. It was indeed forbidden to report about the case. In the United Kingdom. This is really a big story. But that story was not being told. Because it was not allowed to being told. Tommy Robinson was about to become a forgotten prisoner.

However, amnesty International did not release an urgent action. Therefore I contacted the amnesty international headquarter in London and also some national sections of amnesty international. The German Section responded they cannot help and suggested to find an attorney in UK. Wow: ai suggest to seek the advice of a lawyer.

Lately I have sent my pleas to ai in Germany and Switzerland, and the UK in order to inquire why amnesty international has largely remained silent over the arrest and conviction of Tommy Robinson.

When I volunteered in my very early 30s many years ago for amnesty international group 1517 in Aachen Germany, I used to write plea letters to dictators, corrupt leaders and ambassadors, and the like.

Now, I am writing such letters to amnesty international. Think about it.

Amnesty helps for example a blogger and government critical named Jabbar Savalan in Azerbaijan, who rallied publically for a “day of rage” in his country. Certainly he has every right to do so and  police and state prosecutors should not trick him over a drug possession charge into prison for 2 1/2 years. Good that amnesty helped.

Amnesty raises its voice for the underprivileged families of platinum mine workers in South Africa. This is not part of the core mandate of ai, but it’s fair enough that ai reports on that matter to raise awareness and move the money makers to share their wealth a little more with the working poor in their neighbourhood around Pretoria and Johannesburg.

I also agree with that ai points the finger to the abuse of sub Sahara migrants, which even become victim of gang rape in Libya – a country whose society has been destroyed by western people who were voted into office by western people. There is little comfort that my own country, Germany, was reluctant with joining the other democracy-spreading countries in bombing Libya and tearing it literally apart.

What I do not understand, however, is that amnesty international did not speak up when it surfaced that so-called “grooming gangs”, a horrific euphemism, had been abusing minors and children for several decades; the numbers of victims goes in the thousands, and the police and justice and juvenile/family services and politics turned a blind eye on this.

And when someone like Tommy Robinson freaks out over this – we have every reason to freak out over this – then the state steps in and locks him up.

I have read amnesty international’s definition of “free speech” on its webpage, which was launched in December 1st 2017. There, amnesty writes, for what ever wild reason or motivation:

«You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.»

Correct. I did not expect amnesty international to write such nonsense.

The responses I got so far from ai read not much different than the response I would expect from the PR Office of the H.M. Home Office or from the Court itself. When you are siding with the UK government in the matter of Tommy Robinson, but not in the matter of Jabbar Salavan, for example, then maybe you should move in with your HQ into the government.

AI’s silence over this matter will become a stain in amnesty’s reputation and it is not going away so soon, methinks.

As a human rights organisation you belong to the last line of defence against government overreach. Also in the United Kingdom. While Azerbaijan is not know to the OSCE as a country which embraces free speech and its people’s liberties, the United Kingdom is. And the UK is on a very slippery slope towards lower standards in human rights and civil rights.

Jailing Tommy Robinson for speaking up, who lays the finger in the wounds of those in charge of child protection, cannot be met by amnesty international with citing paragraphs of the criminal code that he has violated. Robinson’s jail time is as much politically motivated by the UK as the jail time of Jabbar Savalan is motivated by Azerbaijan.

Amnesty international refuses to help Tommy Robinson because “he broke the law”? What a ridiculous and low level response. Nelson Mandela broke the law. Mahatma Gandhi broke the law. Alexander Solschenizyn broke the law. Andrei Sacharow broke the law. Robin Hood broke the law.

There you can see how times change.

When I stood in 10 December 1995 (Memorial day for human rights declaration) at the market place in Aachen hosting our amnesty international booth, I knew I was doing good when I decided not to work that day, that week on my diploma thesis. Back then, amnesty international was standing on the side of Robin Hood.

Today, when I read what the HQ of amnesty international explained to me in the case of Tommy Robinson, which reads like the press release form the Court or from the H.M. Home Office, I know: Today, amnesty International stands with the Sheriff of Nottingham, not with Robin Hood.

Hong Kong, 19 July 2018


Glaube und Zweifel

Glaube und Zweifel

Ontologische Kontrapunkte des menschlichen Bewußtseins

Die Wissenschaft gilt als die rationalste unter den Disziplinen geistiger Tätigkeit und umfaßt die Schaffung von Wissen im engeren wörtlichen und die Gewinnung von Erkenntnissen im weiteren Sinne.

Insbesondere die Naturwissenschaften gelten in der Allgemeinheit, in der Bevölkerung als über alle Zweifel erhaben. Gleichenorts ist der Zweifel mit einer unbestritten negativen Konnotation behaftet.

In den letzten Monaten wurde die Wissenschaft (engl. science vom lt. scire, dt. wissen) verstärkt in die öffentliche Wahrnehmung gedrängt. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass dies eine Folge der Wahl von Donald J. Trump zum 45. Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ist. Seine politischen Anschauungen und Absichtserklärungen stehen im Widerspruch zu einer seit Jahrzehnten und in den letzten Jahren vermehrt beobachteten Politik der Steuerung und Besteuerung des Energieverbrauchs bei den wohlhabenderen Industrienationen dieser Welt.

In direktem Zusammenhang hierzu steht das Thema Klimawandel und durch die Menschheit verursachter Klimawandel. Einerseits ist der Klimawandel eine wissenschaftliche Theorie im eigentlichen Sinne. Historische und aktuelle Messungen von Temperaturen und Gaskonzentrationen auf der Erde wollen von Wissenschaftlern verstanden werden. Damit ist gemeint, dass die empirischen Beobachtungen, die wir in der Natur und teilweise in Laborexperimenten machen, im Großen und Ganzen als Mechanismus verstanden und als Modell erklärt werden können. Das Modell besteht aus teils anschaulichen physikalischen und chemischen Abläufen, die unsere Beobachtung in Labor und Natur qualitativ richtig und quantitativ mit einer gewissen mathematischen Genauigkeit hinreichend gut erklären.

Modelle sind oft wesentliche Bestandteile wissenschaftlicher Theorien. Jeder Wissenschaftler ist früher oder später mit der Aufgabe konfrontiert, seine Beobachtungen mit einer Theorie zu erklären. Das ist der eigentliche Kern seiner Arbeit als Forscher: die wissenschaftliche Hermeneutik. Im Austausch mit anderen Wissenschaftlern kommt es regelmäßig zu Auseinandersetzungen darüber, ob Messungen korrekt durchgeführt und Beobachtungen richtig interpretiert worden sind. Nicht selten entsteht daraus ein wissenschaftlicher Disput (lt. putare, dt. meinen, glauben. Im dis-putare steckt mit „dis“ die Entzweiung, der Zweifel, und mündet unter Umständen in den Gegensatz, die Kontroverse), in welchem die Ergebnisse des einen Wissenschaftlers von einem anderen Wissenschaftler hinterfragt oder gar angezweifelt werden.

Die eigene Meinung wird dem Wissenschaftler implizit zugestanden, wohingegen die Lehrmeinung auf der breiten Akzeptanz einer Auffassung, einem Konsens beruht, der durch den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs entstanden ist. Dieser Diskurs ist ein prinzipiell endloser Prozeß, in dem sich der wissenschaftliche Stand der Dinge laufend und gelegentlich diskontinuierlich erneuert. Die Quantenhypothese, die sich vor etwa 100 Jahren gebildet hat, ist eine solche Diskontinuität, in welchem die Theorie der Quantenmechanik die klassische Mechanik, welche ebenfalls eine Theorie ist, sprunghaft in wichtigen Teilen der Physik und unseres Weltverständnisses abgelöst hat.

In diesem Lichte ist auch die Theorie des Klimawandels zu sehen. Unter den Wissenschaftlern gibt es Vertreter, die die Hypothese, dass unsere menschliche Zivilisation und insbesondere unser sehr hoher Verbrauch an fossilen Brennstoffen mit der daraus resultierenden Freisetzung von Kohlendioxid zur Erderwärmung führt. Diese These für sich alleine hätte keinen besonders hohen gesellschaftlichen und politischen Rang, wenn die Erderwärmung nicht direkte Folgen für die Menschheit hätte. Auch diese Folgen sind Teil der Klimawandelhypothese.

Unter den Wissenschaftlern gibt es auch Vertreter, die die Klimawandelhypothese anzweifeln. Zu diesem Zweifeln gehören zum Beispiel die Behauptung, daß die Theorie auf unkorrekten Messdaten beruht, daß die Interpretation der Daten nicht korrekt ist, daß die Folgen der Erderwärmung, falls sie denn von den Zweiflern eingeräumt wird, unrealistisch oder übertrieben sind, oder daß eingeräumt wird, daß der Klimawandel und all seine möglichen katastrophalen Folgen als Naturereignis zu verstehen sind wie etwa das Kommen und Gehen von Eiszeiten, die der Mensch weder auslösen noch aufhalten kann.

Alarmiert durch ein Katastrophenszenario von biblischem Ausmaß, in dem die Eiskappen an den Polen schmelzen, Küstengebiete überschwemmt werden, Dürren zu Mißernten, Hungersnot, Völkerwanderungen und Krieg um Nahrungsmittel führen, gesellen sich auch besorgte Bürger zu den Vertretern der Klimawandelhypothese. Da diese Hypothese nicht nur von bedeutenden Wissenschaftlern, sondern auch von einflußreichen Persönlichkeiten aus Politik, Sport, Kunst, Gesellschaft und Glaubensgemeinschaften gestützt wird, hat sich, nicht zuletzt durch betriebene Meinungsbildung ein gesellschaftlicher und öffentlicher Konsens zu einem Sachverhalt gebildet.

Dieser Konsens steht auf zwei Säulen. Erstens ist der anthropogene Klimawandel eine wissenschaftliche Tatsache. Zweitens lassen sich seine katastrophalen Folgen abwenden, wenn die Menschheit, also wir, unser Verhalten ändern. Es ist vor allem die Wissenschaftlichkeit der ersten Säule, die der Rechtfertigung der zweiten Säule die nötige Autorität vermittels ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit verleiht.

Wer wie auch immer geartete Zweifel an der Klimawandelhypothese äußert, verläßt diesen gesellschaftlichen Konsens und setzt sich einer entsprechenden Gefahr der Ächtung aus, die um so größer ausfällt, je größer die Reputation des Zweiflers ist. Der Klimawandel ist mithin nicht mehr nur eine wissenschaftliche Hypothese, sondern ein Dogma, das nicht hinterfragt werden darf. Der Klimawandel wird daher zu einer Tatsache, an die man glauben muß.

Mit dieser wissenschaftlichen Autorität im Gepäck, im Rucksack sozusagen, werden seit über einem halben Jahr Millionen Menschen weltweit zu einem „March for Science“ mobilisiert. Dieser Marsch für die Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftlichkeit versteht sich als Gegenbewegung zur neuen Politik Donald Trumps und seiner Anhänger, welche entweder bezweifeln, daß der Klimawandel wissenschaftlich erhärtet ist, oder der Meinung sind, der erkennbar zu erwartende Schaden aus einem Verzicht auf die Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe sei größer als der Nutzen, der von einer Stabilität des Weltklimas zu ziehen sei. Den Zweiflern am Klimawandel und seinen Ursachen und Folgen wird damit Unwissenschaftlichkeit unterstellt.

Mit der Reputation der Klimazweifler – manche gehen sogar so weit, sie Klimaleugner zu schimpfen – droht auch der Zweifel selbst in Verruf zu geraten. Dabei ist wohl den wenigsten Menschen bewußt, daß der Zweifel zu den elementarsten Voraussetzungen wissenschaftlichen Wirkens gehört. Ich möchte in diesem Aufsatz den Zweifelsbegriff rehabilitieren.

Es ist eine weit verbreitete Meinung, daß gerade die Wissenschaftler diejenigen seien, die alles am genausten wissen oder wissen müssten. Diesem Fehlurteil möchte ich das sokratische Ideal gegenüberstellen, nachdem wir lediglich genau wissen sollten, daß der Zweifel im Verhältnis zum Wissen, zur Gewißheit die höhere rationale Instanz darstellt und nur der Glaube als irrationale Instanz über dem Zweifel steht. Für beide Fälle gilt die Einschränkung, daß der Mensch die dazu nötige Stärke aufbringen muß. Der Gläubige scheitert am Zweifel (so wie Kreuzritter Antonius Block im Film „Das siebente Siegel“ (Bergman 1957)). Wissenschaft ohne Zweifel ist zum Scheitern verurteilt wie das mystische verbrämte Mittelalter.

Der Zweifel ist der Urknall der menschlichen Existenz (unknown 2016)“, indem er als Störung der Harmonie am Nexus von Rationalität und Irrationalität des menschlichen Daseins in unser Bewußtsein tritt – so wie die Vertreibung aus dem Paradies des Glaubens oder die Befreiung aus der Knechtschaft des Dogma.

Der Zweifel gebietet uns, für uns selber zu denken, uns selbst ein Urteil über die Dinge, wie wir sie als vielleicht nur scheinbare Wahrheit vorfinden, zu bilden, ohne dabei den Zweifel als ultima ratio für die Zukunft einzuschränken. Denn allzu oft lauerte der Zweifel nicht am Eingang zur Heideggerschen Höhle, an der sich das Sichtbare vom Verborgenen (Heidegger 1997), die Wahrheit von der Unwahrheit scheidet, sondern an ihrem Ausgang, wo das Licht der Erkenntnis leuchtet.

Der Physiker Richard P. Feynman bezog 1955 – zehn Jahre, bevor er den Nobelpreis für Physik entgegennahm – in einer Rede (Feynman 1955) Stellung zu der Frage, was die Bedeutung der Wissenschaft für die und die Rolle des Wissenschaftlers in der Gesellschaft sei. In seiner Abhandlung hob er die Freiheit zum Zweifel als den wichtigsten Wert der Wissenschaft hervor:

“Unsere Freiheit zu zweifeln entstammt aus dem Kampf gegen Autoritäten in den frühesten Tagen der Wissenschaft. Es war ein tiefgehender und mächtiger Kampf: gestattet uns, die Dinge in Frage zu stellen – sie anzuzweifeln – uns nicht sicher zu sein. Ich glaube, daß es wichtig ist, daß wir diesen Kampf nicht vergessen, um nicht womöglich das zu verlieren, was wir errungen haben.”


Bergman, Ingmar (1957). Det sjunde inseglet (Das siebente Siegel,

Feynman, Richard P. (1955). Public address: The Value of Science. Autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. Caltech, Pasadena CA.

Heidegger, Martin (1997). Vom Wesen der Wahrheit (Zu Platons Höhlengleichnis und Theätet), Vittorio Klostermann.

Unknown Source (2016). Der Zweifel ist der Urknall der menschlichen Existenz. YouTube.

Curiosity and the freedom to doubt

  • To many Physicists, Richard P. Feynman is either known as the Nobel Laureate who shared his prize with Julian Schwinger about some mathematical problems in quantumelectrodynamics and how to solve them – with a trick.
  • Or they know Feynman as the author of the Feynman Lectures in Physics, I think three books on Experimental Physics which were even recommended for the Theoretical Physics course at my alma mater.

Or they know Feynman for both.

  • I know Feynman particularly for the other books – about him. Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman. Six not so easy pieces. Six easy pieces. What do you care what other people think? …

On the night of the 14 August 2015 I came across a YouTube video with Bertrand Piccard, where he gave a public lecture on Zeitgeist Americas 2013:

Piccard, who is known for a number of pioneering which I would call “aeronautical stunts”, starts out in his lecture with a claim, a statement which he had read at the entrance to his auditorium. It’s being claimed there:

Everyone is looking for new things all the time.

Piccard then comments on this quote:

I’m not sure it’s true. I believe that maybe here in this room we are all looking for new things. We are curious. And actually we find our balance into the unknown. But so many people in life don’t trust life at all. So many people are afraid of the unknown. Afraid of the doubts. Afraid of the question marks. So what do they do? They try to find completely other tools than curiosity. They try to find control, power, speed. Because this helps them to fight against the doubt and the question marks. This helps them to fight against the uncertainty, against the “changeants”. Against everything that can threaten their comfort zone. So what I love so much in ballooning actually is the fact that when you fly a balloon you learn exactly the other things, exactly the opposite, exactly the contrary. You learn to have – no power. Because you have no engine. You learn to have no control, because you’re pushed by the wind. …”

Now this is very interesting, the distinction between a) people who are curious and in there find their balance, b) and those people who are scared of doubts and questions and rather seek power and control for their balance.

When I heard these words from Piccard, I was then reminded of Feynman who elaborated on the “Meaning of it all” and “The Freedom to doubt”.

Let me quote ( here Richard Feynman from the book “What do you care what other people think?:

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darned sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure – that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes that this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that’s all — and not to be sure. 

And this reminds me of an opinion brought forward by John F. Kennedy in his well known speechThe President and the Press“, where Kennedy says

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary.

Obviously, the principle of doubt (controversy) which is known to scientists as a painful evolution (Galileo Galilei) has made it also into modern politics, at least by Kennedy, and to at least one ancient lawmaker (Solon), if you read on Kennedy’s speech.

Whereas in law making and in politics, doubt could be considered a necessary systemic reflex against unilateralism and totalitarianism, in science I believe it could have a true academic origin, this is the curiosity.

Coming back to Piccard’s speech, he says there is two sorts of people, the ones who are curious, I would say the ones who seek questions, rather than answers. And then there is the other class of people, those who  cannot stand questions and won’t rest until they have an answer. The latter are the ones who need control over things, the ones who are not apt to the idea of freedom.

Can the aforementioned systemic reflex of doubt against unilateralism still be considered as originating from the same field like the freedom to doubt in scientific affairs?

Acknowledge the Acknowledgement

Recently I received a manuscript draft from my project collaborator with my name on the author list. In my capacity as co-PI I was happy to glance over another manuscript for a soon to be finished project . But as I lately have been caught up with many extra work, I had no time to deeper engage with this manuscript, and asked my young collaborator that she should take me off the author list. She then reminded me of my status as co-PI in the project and my past contributions which led to the making of that very paper, thus justifying my authorship. But I had no time for the extra work on this paper and felt I should do so if I wanted to warrant co-authorship.

In the end, I asked her that she should just mention me in the Acknowledgement, together with the supervisor of a young visiting researcher from another country. This postdoc had joined my group for some months and had had the opportunity to work in the aforementioned project and also work on the paper and thus gain co-authorship. Looking at it from this perspective, I was happy that the visiting postdoc’s supervisor in the other country and I could now document our new and informal collaboration in this Acknowledgment, along with the travel grant number of the visiting postdoc.

Few days later, by coincidence, I met on our campus a colleague who had been working with a former Phd student in my group over several years on an informal project which had made it to a manuscript draft, but not yet to a publication. As I had been following and peeking over the progress of this work for such a long time, I told my colleague I was happy that the publication would now materialize, and he said we should meet altogether soon to finalize details and I then should become co-author of that paper. I replied with a “… no – that’s not necessary, I am happy to be mentioned in the Acknowledgement”, and after a short verbal struggle with my dear colleague I begged him “Acknowledge the Acknowledgement”.

Being co-author of as many high profile publications as possible is important for a career in science. This bears certainly the potential of abuse, such as a claimed authorship, where no authorship is due. This is why organizations like the National Science Foundation, the German, the Swiss and the European Science and Research Foundations and also the ACS provide rules and ethical guidelines about what constitutes an authorship for a publication.

Certainly we want to bring in ourselves in the scientific work and in the publication as much as possible. But as life has limits of various kinds, we may end up in an Acknowledgement, which unfortunately is not always valued by our employer, funding agencies, professional organisations, search committees and the like. The Acknowledgement is not really part of the performance metrics these days, except maybe for the funding project number.

Therefore, I would like to urge everybody to responsible look into a list of authors and co-authors of a publication, and also in the Acknowledgement. The contribution to a project and a publication can be important, can be material, can be even critical, and still formally not satisfy the criteria for authorship. Yet, this important your contribution should be acknowledged by your peer – up to the hierarchy – with a serious and well-deserved credit. In short, acknowledge the Acknowledgement.

Nachrichten aus der Chemie: “Keine Experimente!”

Können die Fachhochschulen den Universitäten bald den Rang ablaufen? Eventuell sogar als intellektuelle Zentren?

Das wäre eine Überraschung, denn Fachhochschulen bilden Experten aus, die sich fachspezifisch äußern, wenn sie angefragt werden.

Intellektuelle hingegen nehmen ungefragt Stellung zu gesellschaftsrelevanten Themen. Das traut man nur Universitäten zu.

Jüngst störte ein Chemieprofessor der (Fach-) Hochschule Merseburg eine Eröffnungsrede der Bundeskanzlerin nach 68er Manier lautstark und mit Transparent mit der Forderung “Keine Experimente!”.

Das gleiche Motto, mit dem Kanzler Adenauer 10 Jahre vor den Studentenrevolten die absolute Mehrheit für seine Partei eingefahren hatte.

Da die Majestätsbeleidigung in der Bundesrepublik nicht strafbewehrt ist, wurde der Professor nicht von der Polizei abgeführt, aber immerhin doch vom Saalschutz hinauseskortiert.

Damit kann die Hochschule Merseburg, die sich ansonsten auf die Vermittlung von Schlüsselqualifikationen beschränkt, nun einen richtigen Dissidenten zu ihren Fakultätsmitgliedern zählen.

Es scheint aber, dass der Hochschule noch die Kragenweite für einen solchen intellektuellen Aufstieg fehlt. Sie distanzierte sich von ihrem Professor und stellte disziplinarische Vorüberlegungen an.

Als der Schreck in Merseburg nachgelassen und der Verstand wieder eingesetzt hatte, entschied man, die Angelegenheit auf sich beruhen zu lassen.

Veröffentlicht unter

Artur Braun, “Keine Experimente!”, Korrespondenz, Nachrichten aus der Chemie (Wiley) 04/2016; 0.201 64(4):458.