Federation freedom of science

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federation of Freedom of Science
(BFW)
purpose 1. To preserve and promote the freedom of research, teaching and study, 2. to oppose any submission to the claims to power of individual groups or interests, 3. to press for a policy that continuously increases educational opportunities while maintaining performance standards connects.
Chair: Three chairmen and the treasurer
Establishment date: 17th November 1970
Dissolution date: 17th November 2015
Number of members: approx. 5200 (1970s)
Seat : Bonn
Website: Federation of Freedom of Science ( Memento from January 29, 2018 in the Internet Archive )

The Federation Freedom of Science (BFW) was a registered association of people from different political and social directions. a. campaigned for the freedom of science and the efficiency of universities and schools. The main focus of the association's activities was public relations work on educational policy issues .

It was a heterogeneous collection movement in which all politically active age groups, the three major Federal Republican parties and many different professional sectors were represented, which among other things came together as a reaction to psychological and physical violence from parts of the West German student movement against dissenters at the universities Association has formed. The BFW developed into the most important platform for the intellectual conservatism that arose in the Federal Republic of Germany as a result of the 1968 movement . The development context of the BFW is the student movement , the university reform and the educational expansion in the 1960s.

Until the 2000s, the opponents of sections of the student movement were hardly considered in the historicization of the 1968 movement and the 1970s. Much had been written about the " sixty-eight " at the time, but little about the opposition this movement had received from the universities themselves and from other sectors of society. With the more recent historical research, misunderstandings at the time between the “sixty-eighties” and the Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft as well as persistent legends about the BFW had to be clearly corrected, because the BFW members were much younger than what was sometimes suggested at the time. In addition, he had persecuted and remigrants, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in the leadership ranks, but also among the members of the National Socialist regime . The association was not a reservoir for opponents of reform, but always emphasized the need for reforms.

The experiences of mostly psychological, but also physical violence by the West German student movement during the Cold War period contributed significantly to the development, but also to further solidarity with the BFW. But the fear of infiltration of the universities and a socialist revolution at the time also played a role in the formation of the association, which was formed at a time when the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) had a great deal of influence on the universities of West Berlin. In these contexts aroused concern that sections of radical students had called for the “conquest of the university” as the first stop on the “long march through the institutions ”.

In the opinion of the BFW, the radical sections of the student movement no longer wanted to base Marxism on one scientific interpretation among many, but on the model of the " Eastern Bloc " as the guiding ideology of all research and teaching. The association members argued that Marxism should not be elevated to a monopoly of truth and function as an all-encompassing paradigm at universities, but that it has its place there as a critical method among others.

The analyzes of the more recent research showed that the members were primarily a male educated elite shaped by bourgeois values, but that they were younger and much more modern and progressive in their attitudes than what their opponents assumed were for the interest group was occasionally downright an "enemy image". For example, they advocated a necessary university reform , the abolition of the ordinariate and a better position for non-ordinaries and assistants. Many of the professors organized in the BFW also gained their scientific reputation in the “methodologically and theoretically most innovative research branches” of their subjects and saw their work as a “contribution to the consolidation of the liberal-democratic social order of the Federal Republic ”.

In the times of the political-intellectual polarization of the West German academic milieu in the 1970s, defining figures of the BFW in its first decade of activity were well-known humanities and social scientists, high-ranking science officials and influential public intellectuals such as B. Ernst Fraenkel , Wilhelm Hennis , Georg Nicolaus Knauer , Helmut Kuhn , Richard Löwenthal , Ernst Nolte , Heinz-Dietrich Ortlieb , Konrad Repgen , Walter Rüegg , Otto von Simson and Friedrich Tenbruck . Even this list corrects a widespread cliché that the professors organized in the BFW were the last contingent of an older, arch-conservative and often Nazi-burdened generation of professors who wanted the student movement to blow away the thousand-year-old stench under their gowns . A majority of the members mentioned were still among the younger professors around 1970 and had been academically socialized after 1945 and only moved to the chairs in the early 1960s, i.e. shortly before the “ 68 revolt ” (see Roman Herzog , Hermann Lübbe , Hans Maier , Thomas Nipperdey , Erwin K. Scheuch and Alexander Schwan ). In addition, there were those persecuted by the National Socialist regime and remigrants such as Ernst Fraenkel , Helmut Kuhn , Richard Löwenthal and a few more. Christian democrats like Roman Herzog, Helmut Kuhn, Hans Maier, Konrad Repgen and social democrats like Richard Löwenthal, Hermann Lübbe, Thomas Nipperdey, Heinz-Dietrich Ortlieb and Alexander Schwan were roughly in balance. Even the inventor of the club's name, the historian Ernst Nolte, was by no means considered conservative at the time with his typological analysis of fascism .

One of the main founders of the NofU, which was one of the associations from which the BFW emerged, was Ernst Fraenkel , who is considered one of the "fathers" of modern political science in the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin and who was a Jew during the Third Reich (also in the Resistance to National Socialism ) was forced to leave Germany. His work " Der Doppelstaat ", which appeared in the USA in 1940 and then in Germany in 1974 , is still considered essential standard literature on National Socialist Germany today . Fraenkel saw many months of attacks and threats by the student movement against dissenters and himself as great dangers and suffered greatly as a result. However, the student movement claimed for itself to catch up with the German resistance and to fight against “fascist” structures of the German state. The other side saw this as a threat to the young democracy and drew parallels with the end of the Weimar Republic . The conflict at that time grew out of these contradictions, especially at universities. More recent research has shown that a change in the public reappraisal of National Socialism had already started before the 1968 movement and that it may even have depersonalized and “derealized” National Socialism as “ fascism that can be found ubiquitously in the present ”. According to the latest contemporary historical research, this has led to a political “conceptual wilderness”, as can also be seen in the disputes about the NofU and the BFW at the time.

Since the 1970s there have been numerous names for the association as a right-wing extremist organization, such as "legal cartel", "academic NPD", "brown" or "fascist union". Graffiti such as “End with the brown league, freedom of science” were also made in the universities. This is where the practice of mutual allegations of fascism, which is still widespread today, began. Younger professors such as the social democrat Thomas Nipperdey , who counted themselves to the liberal reform avant-garde, were outraged that the students attacked them as “Nazis” with statements such as “NiPerDey is a fascist tail”.

But some of the BFW's reactions also led to the conflict between “right” and “left” intensifying in the 1970s and 1980s. In response to the protests against the Vietnam War , the emergency laws and the radical decree, as well as the associated, allegedly anti- constitutional student riots , the co-initiators of the BFW, Karl Holzamer and Gerhard Löwenthal, for example, conjured up the supposed danger of a communist overthrow in the Federal Republic of Germany. Both “sides” got deeper and deeper into a split into a “right” and a “left” camp. Since the 1990s he turned increasingly to school policy and other questions of university and educational policy. By the way, the remaining veterans of the BFW fought almost side by side with the student representatives against the Bologna reform at a crucial point until 2014 . But neither side had really noticed that. The association later suffered from a lack of money and the old age of its members and disbanded in 2015. Due to the many misunderstandings and misinterpretations from the time of its creation, work on the BFW reproduced the typical generalities against the association until the end of the 2000s. This pattern broke for the first time scientifically sound and more balanced articles from 2008 and 2010.

history

The more recent contemporary historical research attaches importance to also addressing the effects of the 1960s student movement, which the older research hardly considered, although they played an important role in the constitution of the BFW: the experiences mostly psychological, but also physical violence carried by the student movement significantly to the development, but also to the further solidarity with the BFW.

Looking back on the familiar images of the Vietnam Congress and Commune I, it is often forgotten that the 1968 movement was first and foremost a university revolt. The university teachers were the first to suffer from the student movement . The “Ordinarius” with the thousand-year-old mustache under his gown was for the students the symbol of a supposedly reactionary university system. Especially in the early 1970s, there were sometimes extremely violent actions by students from the extreme left spectrum against dissenting teachers and students. In lectures and seminars, dissidents were also attacked with heckling and chanting, not infrequently with eggs and bags of paint.

Causes and reasons for the emergence: psychological and physical violence

There are many examples of violence by students of the extreme left spectrum against teachers, but also against fellow students, especially from the time the BFW was founded. Manfred Scheler, for example, came to NofU early on . In 1969 he was only able to take the intermediate examination under police protection. There was also a campaign in the following years that meant for him a two-year "hunt without equal". In 1973, for example, two students threatened him (the "pig") with a "shot in the neck". Manfred Scheler came close to a "mental and physical breakdown" through the whole situation. One of the early members was Folkmar Koenigs , who held a chair at the Technical University of Berlin. He, too, put his experiences of physical violence in connection with parts of the student movement on record in the 1970s.

In 1970, 70 students came to a meeting at the Free University of Berlin to - according to a self-report - "tap the reaction on the fingers". “Reaction” meant the Romance studies professor and Social Democrat Erich Loos , who was persecuted by the regime during the Nazi era . In 1967 he was a speaker at the official funeral service for Benno Ohnesorg . At the same time, however, he later belonged to the NofU because of the violence at the university . His name, along with other board members, appeared on almost all NofU publications. The 70 students referred to Loos as a "pond toad" and pelted him with eggs while he tried to protect himself behind a table.

The unrest at the universities shocked many returnees. Hans Maier received numerous calls from Jewish colleagues who reported anti-Semitic aggression at universities. Edith Eucken-Erdsiek from Freiburg, Hilde Domin from Heidelberg, Ernst Fraenkel and Richard Löwenthal from Berlin got in touch with him. In Munich, Helmut Kuhn and Friedrich Georg Friedemann were the targets of many attacks. The months of attacks had worn down Fraenkel and Domin mentally, both asked Maier on the phone: "Is it starting again in Germany?"

Richard Löwenthal , who as a Jew could no longer publish his dissertation in 1931 and emigrated soon afterwards, said on a television broadcast in 1970:

“Most […] the forms of student terror that we have had in recent years are similar to fascist ones. It is not a question of the percentage […] when in so many universities it turns out again and again that certain people are targeted for insults and threats, physical attacks, threats to their families and the impossibility of their existence because of their opinions; that targeted campaigns against university professors by all means [...] because of their convictions [...] take place. And then I would like to ask you, Herr Westphalen, if you had been old enough to see in 1932 how the first lectures of university lecturers were disrupted because of their race, with similar, with comparable methods - I would like to know whether you asked about the question at the time the percentage. "

- Richard Lowenthal

But statements by professors who were initially very positive towards the student movement were similar in view of the violence at the universities. Jürgen Habermas, for example, raised the charge of "left-wing fascism" (which he publicly withdrew a short time later) and Max Horkheimer pointed out that "an affinity for the mindset of the Nazis striving for power" was "unmistakable". The movement is about "enjoying the riot, acting out aggression". Even Theodor W. Adorno to have said: "I have set up a theoretical model of thinking. How could I know that people want to make it happen with Molotov cocktails? ”In the meantime, former members of the student movement, who now see them critically, have made similar statements. B. by Götz Aly .

In this situation, many professors felt that they had lost their “spiritual home”, some suffered greatly from the actions of radical students (for example Manfred Scheler , Konrad Repgen , Erwin K. Scheuch , Gerhard Kaiser and Friedrich Tenbruck ). Tenbruck had been massively attacked by sections of the students at the end of the 1960s, so that he had to be exempted from lectures until the 1970s. He was pushed off the campus by 300 students in Heidelberg, pelted with tomatoes and then chased across the city on a "car hunt". In 1972 a general meeting of students in Tübingen decided to “dismiss” him. Tenbruck never quite got over these events. In at least one known case, the violence ended in suicide: In September 1969 Jan van der Meiden , professor of philosophy at Heidelberg University , committed suicide . The rector Werner Conze , the dean of the Philosophical Faculty Bodo Müller and the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote in a letter:

“On the basis of precise investigations, the Philosophical Faculty can no longer doubt that the deceased felt that his right to free teaching and his devotion to his teaching profession was deeply violated. He was unable to get over the obstruction of his lectures by students [...] in the summer semester. "

- Werner Conze , Bodo Müller and Hans-Georg Gadamer

The burden of psychological and physical violence had other consequences: Some professors left the Federal Republic , for example, was followed by Hermann Lübbe 1970 a reputation in Switzerland, Walter Rüegg went in 1973 to the University of Bern and Georg Nicolaus Knauer emigrated in 1975 from the Free University of Berlin from to Philadelphia from. In a 1974 speech he said:

“They [groups of young extremists] immediately confiscated the beautiful word 'reform', found the liveliest support of numerous established liberal intellectuals and accused anyone who responded with a hesitant 'no' or 'but' to their 'reform proposals', but in short effective as 'reform opponents and fascists'. "

- Georg Nicolaus Knauer : About the art of political self-defense in a democracy

Hans Maier reports on a number of "discouraging" incidents:

“Campaigns against older and more sensitive scholars who were not able to cope with the strain, health problems, depression, breakdowns, even suicides were the result. I've seen two such disasters up close. "

- Hans Maier : Bad years, good years. A life 1931 ff.

Even Pope Benedict XVI. reports from this time:

“I never had any disturbances in my own lecture [...]. Nevertheless, I experienced the dramatic terror that was there. "

- Benedict XVI. : Last conversations

At that time , Joseph Ratzinger was won over by Hans Maier for the Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft and became a member.

Georg Nicolaus Knauer was the unofficial "leader" of the emergency community for a free university (NofU) early on . Georg Nicolaus Knauer, professor of ancient philology at the Free University of Berlin since 1966 , had already referred to the situation at his university in an article in Oxford Magazine in 1967 in order to find colleagues. In addition to the publication of critical texts, many later BFW founders also worked as reviewers against the radical sections of the student movement. Knauer wrote, for example, together with Fritz Borinski , the then professor for educational sciences, on behalf of the rector of the Free University of Berlin in 1967 an opinion on the " critical university ". They were advised by Richard Löwenthal and the sociologist Otto Stammer . The paper came to the conclusion that contrary to the assertion of the General Student Committee (AStA) that the “ critical university ” is a contribution to higher education reform, an organ of the student body and a place of engagement with “critical science”, it is rather the arm of non-university political groups Forces like the APO and a “management school” at the university. On the basis of this statement, the Academic Senate of the Free University of Berlin decided in 1967 not to support the “ Critical University ” for the time being. The later historian Michael Wolffsohn also joined the NofU at a young age . Wolffsohn was very active and co-founded the history reform group at the Free University of Berlin . Kezia Knauer and Rita Braun-Feldweg were personalities in the early environment of the NofU .

Erwin K. Scheuch at the University of Cologne was initially a strong advocate of the student movement. A leaflet in early 1968 described him as the “liberal idol” of the Cologne student body. At a memorial service for Benno Ohnesorg by the Cologne AStA in June 1967 , he harshly criticized the West Berlin police and the Springer newspapers . Scheuch asked repeatedly in the summer of 1967 about the “complicity of society” in the escalation of the protest. For example, in a speech he asked:

“[Wasn't it an essential cause of the unrest in the youth] that this generation takes our word for it, that it expects practical democracy and freedom where we only say democracy and freedom? [The elders would have to beware of the "Phariseeism"] taking every formal error of the students as an opportunity to distance themselves from uncomfortable students. "

- Erwin K. Scheuch

Scheuch is considered to be one of the "fathers" of empirical sociology in the Federal Republic. Election research is carried out according to his concept to this day, and his method found its way into school books. In December 1967, Scheuch was surprised in a letter to Tenbruck that Tenbruck was taking the protests “so tragically”. Certainly irrational affects would also find expression in them. The feared reaction from the right would give more cause for concern: "I have the impression that all illiberal right-wing forces in Germany have been waiting for the illiberals from the left to terrorize the liberal center." The sociologists in Frankfurt in 1968 was for Scheuch but his radical conflict with the activists of the " Socialist German Student Association " (SDS). After a panel discussion with Hans-Jürgen Krahl and his SDS colleagues, which he himself had arranged as deputy chairman of the “ German Society for Sociology ”, Scheuch found the conversation to be pointless. Scheuch was appalled by the students' totalitarian demands and wrote a letter to the editor to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung :

“[Now for him] no more conversation is possible, but only self-protection against the romantics of physical violence. [He was repelled] by the terrorist nature of the discussion, the stereotypes of thinking, the insults and, last but not least, sheer hatred [the SDS spokesman] mixed with fear [the SDS spokesperson]. "

- Erwin K. Scheuch

Scheuch later became the press spokesman for the BFW, which did not make him more popular with left-wing Cologne students. His own “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Scheuch-Vorlesung” disrupted his events and the Marxist student union Spartakus and the social democratic, from 1972 socialist university union (SHB) demanded his dismissal. The fact that at the same time a “Hillgruber Committee” attacked the newly appointed historian colleague Andreas Hillgruber and other colleagues were harassed, generated a certain solidarity with the class. Scheuch fell out with his admired teacher René König , which was also due to the different behavior towards left-wing extremist groups at the university. Scheuch led twelve victorious trials over the years and campaigned against the threat to academic freedom. His opponents, such as the historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler , who themselves were not a target, later played down the attacks on the professors. Scheuch's wife and employee Ute Scheuch reported that her husband suffered greatly from the attacks.

As early as 1971, the boundaries within the committees no longer ran along the status groups of the university. Rather, since the beginning of the group university, organized political camps had formed across all statuses. The trigger for this development was the politicization of the university by the 1968 movement , which led to an initial split into “left” and “right” camps. The effects of the university laws, but also the resistance of the BFW, set in motion a further polarization process. The “liberal” forces in the “center” were increasingly deterred by the violence of the Red Cells and K groups or the often unsuccessful and lengthy committee work and had begun to form coalitions with BFW representatives. The most prominent example of this is probably Alexander Schwan , director at the Otto Suhr Institute , who played a key role in developing the institute's “revolutionary” draft statutes in 1969 and, in this sense, was a supporter of Rolf Kreibich for the implementation of the preliminary law . In 1971, Schwan and the NofU founded the “Liberal Action”, which arose from a broad alliance. In it there were among other things the social democratic working groups of the Liberal Action, in which u. a. Nipperdey, Schwan and Heinrich August Winkler worked together.

Political language criticism in the young Federal Republic and the BFW

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

In the intellectual discourse of the late 1960s and 1970s, language had also moved to the center of reasoning. In the process, some eloquent social scientists and philosophers discovered political language criticism as a means of dealing with the intellectual left. They were all more or less closely related to the BFW. Hans Maier brought the language-critical interpretation of the New Left into play. As a political scientist born in 1931, he belonged to the generation of the 1945s, the cohorts between 1922 and 1932 who experienced the end of the “ Third Reich ” as young people and who were closely related to the new beginning in democracy. Maier became aware of the importance of political language in 1967 in his dispute with the growing National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD). First he tried to strip the NPD's vocabulary of its democratic camouflage, to “expose” and “unveil” it in order to expose the anti-democratic thrust of the right-wing extremists. At a young age he was appointed to the chair for political science at the Geschwister-Scholl-Institut of the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich , where he met Eric Voegelin , among others . Sensitized by the confrontation with the NPD, he then criticized the language of the New Left and political theology. In 1968 he attacked the "cohort of post-speakers and post-prayers" of Jürgen Habermas , Theodor W. Adorno or Ernst Bloch , but not these themselves, who had "important things" to say. Their imitators, however, according to Maier, used a "clichéd, viciously drumming German, a formulas whose purpose is not communication, but declamation and deafening". Confronted daily in the student movement, Maier saw a similar danger for the young democracy of the Federal Republic . Maier was convinced that there was a close connection between the "language and social change" that he observed carefully. The BFW also advocated the concept of “ defensive democracy ”.

Causes and reasons for the emergence: debates about higher education reforms

In addition to the motive for rejection of psychological and physical violence, there was also a political one. With the intention of curbing the student movement, after 1968 many federal states responded to their most important higher education policy demand: the expansion of student participation in academic self-administration. Under the heading of "democratization", the West Berlin University Act of 1969 created almost a third parity of students, assistants and university teachers in the collegial bodies. For the first time, the students gained relevant influence on the distribution of research funds, on appointment procedures, on doctorates and even on their own examination regulations. Especially the more radical part of the left among the students took this as carte blanche. At the Free University of Berlin in November 1969, a tripartite council elected the 31-year-old sociology assistant Rolf Kreibich as Germany's first university president without a doctorate.

Kreibich had won the election mainly thanks to the promise not to allow any more police operations on the university premises in the event of future protests. The communist Red Cells used this in December 1969 to force a business administration lecture to be broken off. The shocked deans of the Free University of Berlin spoke to the Governing Mayor Klaus Schütz (SPD). He expressed his understanding, but did not intervene.

It was only when the topic of “co-determination” became an important issue and the state anchored the right to a say in other status groups at the university that political capital became a factor that should no longer be underestimated in the universities. Especially “when Marxism was supposed to be elevated to the leading ideology”, a threatening “problem situation” arose for the later BFW members and they began to mobilize political capital as well. They organized their institutional defense with the help of an interest group, the BFW. Already in the founding appeal of 1970 it said on Marxism:

“[Science] can only exist as long as no dogma defines in advance what is good and what is bad. Therefore, Marxism has a legitimate place at the university, provided that it sees itself as a self-critical method of knowledge, not on the other hand as a fanatical claim to sole possession of the truth or even militant actionism. "

- Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft : call for founding

Hans Joachim Geisler , co-founder of the NofU and the BFW, can be described as one of the most active BFW members and one of the most driving forces in the association (in 2011, for the first time in the association's history, the BFW Geisler assigned an honorary chairmanship specially created for this purpose ). Michael Wolffsohn gave a laudation in which he described the individual views of the actors involved in NofU and BFW. In retrospect, Geisler justified his motivation for his commitment in the 2010s with three arguments, which the contemporary historical research u. a. with the rejection of violence and totalitarianism as typical for a large part of the people involved in the BFW:

"What we all felt in 1969 was that the university threatened to be destroyed by a kind of pincer grip on the one hand by these radical left-wing disruptors of the courses [...] and on the other hand [...] the fulfillment of the demands of these people through the Berlin University Act. [...] Well, we just felt completely abandoned by the state and on the other hand exposed to these immediate threats, which for some colleagues were really bad and dangerous [...]. The second, however, was also concern about democracy in Germany. This student movement explicitly referred to communist dictators [...], and many older people remembered the Nazi era again [...] and they said: Our children shouldn't ask us later: Why didn't you do anything? ? [...] In West Berlin , of course, the communist threat was also particularly noticeable. The Russians stood around Berlin with their tanks, […] the Khrushchev ultimatum was not forgotten […]. This threat was real and was alive. "

- Hans Joachim Geisler

The university lecturers organized in the BFW saw themselves in a pincer situation around 1970 due to pressure from students and attempts at political control from below and above.

In addition to the educational expansion and the student movement, structural changes were one, if not the most important, trigger for the establishment of the BFW:

"Today, the freedom of science is threatened from two sides: Through the terrorism of ideologically fanatical groups at universities against those who think differently and through provisions in a number of university laws that have given non-scientists increasing influence on the evaluation of academic achievements and the selection of academic teachers."

- Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft : Program declaration

The goal of preventing the introduction of third parity and the group university is also committed to the approximately 1,500 professors from more than 30 West German universities, who had expressed their serious concerns in writing in the Marburg Manifesto about the “democratization efforts of the universities”. For the most part, they turned to the newly founded Federation of Freedom of Science.

In the left perception pattern, the fears of the conservative perception pattern, which saw a danger for West German democracy through a democratization of the universities, were not shared. But even the left-wing perception pattern has sometimes not supported changes beyond the reforms and rejected the increasing radicalism of individual students. It also strongly criticized many of the SDS's methods , but was of the opinion that the necessary reforms would not have been initiated without the radical demands and provocations. In retrospect, various aspects of the period of the “ sixty-eighties ” of the past century are considered in an attempt to assess this period. For example, in 2017 a son of the leader of the students, Rudi Dutschke, said:

“You have brought a lot of good. For the upbringing of children, the emancipation of women, environmental protection and the third world. On the other hand, of course, there is violence […]. [To the comment that some people were talking about the power cartel of the sixty-eight years old, which colored their past, he replied:] Let's take Joschka Fischer. He threw stones back then, today he's almost an oligarch. It depends on how strongly you want power. "

- Hosea-Che Dutschke : What is life like as Rudi Dutschke's son? , In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung , 2017

In the years that followed, the BFW was repeatedly accused of being an “opponent of reform”. Historical research has shown that the BFW members did not criticize the fact that restructuring took place, but rather individual points and effects of these restructuring. However, they always underlined the structural crisis in which the university was in their opinion, as well as the need for reform of the institution. Many of them also represented a self-image as active reformers of the 1960s, such as Hermann Lübbe or Walter Rüegg . According to contemporary historical research, accusing the BFW of fundamentally opposing reforms is too short-sighted and insufficiently differentiated. For example, Hans Maier writes:

“Reforms were necessary, they had to be. But I was not ready to accept three things: Ideological one-sidedness and the deliberate elimination of diversity of opinion; the abuse of the corporate traditions of the university in the service of a revolutionary transformation of society - and finally open violence as a means of achieving political goals. "

- Hans Maier : Bad years, good years. A life 1931 ff.

founding

Hans Maier's work was the nationwide organizational preparation for the founding congress. He relied on the "Frankfurter Kreis" around Karl Häuser , Edith Eucken-Erdsiek and Walter Rüegg , on the West Berlin NofU around Otto von Simson , Georg Nicolaus Knauer , Hans Joachim Geisler , Horst Sanmann and Thomas Nipperdey and on a Tübinger Group around the sociologist Tenbruck, a student of Arnold Bergstraesser . Apart from small changes, the committee was based on the statutes of the NofU . As the first founding of a regional association and the most active section of the BFW, it was always a special case and remained so until the end. She remained actively involved in education policy and changed to the “Berlin-Brandenburg” section after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 2000 it formed the last active local branch of the BFW. With its focus on public relations outside the universities, but also with the opening up to broad membership, the construction of the NofU became a model for the BFW. NofU professors who emigrated from West Berlin such as ( Willi Blümel in Bielefeld, Horst Sanmann in Hamburg, Jürgen Zabeck in Mannheim, Bernd Rüthers in Konstanz, Roman Herzog in Speyer and, last but not least, Thomas Nipperdey on the BFW federal board) also took care of the early years for the dissemination of the NofU's know-how throughout the BFW.

Löwenthal, Wilhelm Hennis , Lübbe and Maier formulated the BFW's program declaration . A first board and a federal committee were elected. The League of Freedom of Science was born. Far more people came to the founding congress than the organizers had expected despite many registrations: over 1,500 people filled the Bad Godesberg town hall.

The NofU and the BFW did not want to be an association of professors, but campaigned for all interested citizens and university members and tried to influence public opinion, especially outside the universities. In the founding call it was stated:

“The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft is to be an association of those who are aware of the inseparable connection between freedom of science and free democracy. […] Today the demand for the politicization of science arises with the intolerance that is observed in totalitarian systems of rule. Science may only 'reveal' what is socially relevant [...] Research may not be made responsible by ideological groups, by individual interests or by daily politics. "

- Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft : call for founding

One day after the founding congress there was still international support from prominent sources. In September 1970 the “ International Committee on University Emergency ” (ICUE) was formed with the collaboration of BFW initiators such as Richard Löwenthal. Now 104 renowned scientists and ICUE members, including seven Nobel Prize winners, from various European countries but also from North America, Australia and Japan have published a memorandum in which they announced that they are international because of the current "existential crisis of the university" have joined together.

“As researchers we have to complain about the damage to our sciences, as teachers about the damage to our students, and as citizens about the damage to our countries. As researchers, teachers and citizens, we declare that no social movement can truly serve humanity that destroys or corrupts the institution in which rational debate and spiritual discipline have their home. "

- ICUE

Another story

By the mid-1970s, the BFW had grown to around 5000 people. In addition to the executive board, the federal committee was the most important body of the BFW. He set the guidelines and elected top management. Initially, the majority were professors, but their number fell over the years. The proportion of non-university professions rose, especially journalists, business people, politicians and lawyers. From 1976 the first “ housewife ” also worked . Nevertheless, the majority of the federal committee was determined by men. Only five women were elected as delegates by 1976, a student, a research assistant, a housewife and two university professors: Liselotte Süllwold , professor of psychology and Margot Becke , professor of chemistry, who was rector of Heidelberg University from 1966 to 1968 and thus the first female rector of a university in the Federal Republic of Germany .

The BFW united all university political camps of the "middle" between left and right-wing extremism. In the applications for membership, he explicitly excluded members of “right-wing or left-wing radical associations” such as “ NPD , Action Resistance , Red Cells , DKP , Spartakus or similar organizations” from membership in the BFW. Anyone who submitted a membership application to the BFW had to sign - at least since the spring of 1971 - that they “stood on the ground of the free democratic basic order and did not belong to any right-wing or left-wing radical association [...].” The candidates were then examined in an admission procedure, in which one or two advocates, ideally BFW members, assured their trustworthiness. Only in a few individual cases were members of the NPD accidentally accepted into the association because the appendix with radical groups was missing on the applications that were on display at the founding congress. If the association became aware of such memberships, it immediately reviewed the case and excluded the relevant people. Michael Zöller , for example, reported at a board meeting in 1972 that two members of the BFW were also organized in the NPD in Bremen. As participants in the founding congress, they were "not checked". The persons should be asked whether the party membership still exists and if they are excluded in the case.

Opposing groups often accused the association of representing a right-wing extremist collecting basin for "old Nazis". In the BFW's applications for membership, historians were only able to find a few examples of members with a "stronger" involvement in the Nazi regime, despite an intensive search : For example, Willi Willing joined the BFW and had a Nazi past, but was the exception in the BFW On the other hand, there were also members of the BFW who had actively resisted in the “ Third Reich ” , such as B. Otto Ziebill , who worked as a lawyer during the Nazi era and belonged to the resistance group around Carl Friedrich Goerdeler . In 1946 he became chairman of the Chamber of Appeal for Denazification , and later Lord Mayor of Nuremberg. In 1973 he joined the BFW. An assessment of the BFW as a "collecting tank" for former NSDAP and SS leaders, as the opponents of the BFW often claimed, cannot be confirmed by research analogous to the findings on the leadership of the BFW.

Some public law experts were also in the BFW, in management positions such as Michael Kloepfer and Günter Püttner . In the publications of the BFW, however, wrote u. a. also Axel von Campenhausen , Willi Blümel , Wilhelm A. Kewenig , Martin Kriele , Hartmut Schiedermair . The largest increase in the course of the years was recorded by BFW members who were not employed at a university. As early as 1972 they made up half of all members. At the same time, the percentage of university professors fell below 30% for the first time in 1976. One reason for this was the increased involvement of the BFW in school politics, as a result of which more and more teachers, parents and also a few students joined the association, but professors left the association. Michael Zöller , Thomas Nipperdey and Richard Löwenthal resigned because the BFW had increasingly transformed into a teachers' association. While Löwenthal resigned from the BFW, Alexander Schwan became more involved in it and even resigned from the SPD with a scandal.

Axel Springer was one of the sympathizers of the NofU , in particular , but also of the Federation of Freedom of Science . On November 23, 1980, he hosted a reception in his home for members of both associations. He said:

“Freedom was the goal of the men and women who rebelled against Hitler, with scientists at the forefront. Freedom has also inspired Berliners to stand up to the communists here in this city and to persevere in this way: in 1946 in the election to the city parliament ; 1948 during the blockade ; 1961 when the wall was built . And also with the establishment of the ' Emergency Community for a Free University '. "

- Axel Springer

In the newspaper BILD , however, the BFW was rarely a topic, even if the NofU placed some advertisements here in 1972 in order to address as many citizens as possible. However, members of the association often published their articles in the national "Springer-Presse" ( Die Welt , Welt am Sonntag ), which also reported positively about the BFW. Otherwise, BFW members placed articles in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . Also, Time reported positively about the association. Overall, the BFW used particularly national papers with a “high” claim.

The humanities and the BFW

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The hallmark of the western-influenced general overhaul of the West German humanities and social sciences was their normative function for the theoretical foundation and stabilization of the liberal-democratic constitutional and social order of the young Federal Republic . The young, academically socialized, up-and-coming scientists after 1945 worked together with their peers from other areas of society such as journalism and politics on the project of a comprehensive liberalization and westernization of West German society. The young modernizers developed their own directions, initially under the influence of a few older ordinaries who, as so-called “founding fathers”, had initiated modernization with, in some cases, downright reinvention of their subjects. Among these founding fathers were a remarkably high number of remigrants. Like their students, they too had been influenced by Western, Anglo-Saxon scientific developments during their years of exile. But they were much more oriented towards traditional German schools of thought. So a mixture of updated older German traditions, small reform approaches before 1945 and Anglo-Saxon-influenced scientific modernity emerged. This mixture was often only implemented by the generation of pupils in a coherent teaching and research program. An example of such processes was the development of West German sociology , which did not finally establish itself as a university major until the post-war period. Sociology quickly rose to become the leading science of social modernization. Despite their very different political and intellectual roots (on the one hand remigrants such as Max Horkheimer , Theodor W. Adorno and René König , on the other hand e.g. the refined National Socialist Helmut Schelsky ), the founding generation of Federal Republican sociology consistently turned away from the philosophical and humanistic tradition of the German pre-war sociology and redirected the subject radically to a diagnosis of the present, structural functionalism and empirical social research . The subject of sociology grew rapidly, and the students of this founding generation rose to top academic positions from the late 1950s. They interpreted sociology even more strongly as a socio-political instrument for the liberalization of the Federal Republic . The young sociologists like M. Rainer Lepsius , Ralf Dahrendorf , Jürgen Habermas and others were already largely alienated from the German social philosophy of the 19th and early centuries. Erwin K. Scheuch was one of these young West German post-war sociologists .

Scheuch had already come into contact with the school of empirical social research in 1950. In 1952 he played a key role in the creation of various textbooks and manuals (Fischer Lexicon Sociology, Manual of Empirical Social Research). König was the initiator and promoter of empirical social research, Scheuch was the researcher. He also headed (together with Rudolf Wildenmann ) the “Cologne election study” for the 1961 federal election , which, with its micro-analysis of the conditions of power changes in democracy, became fundamental to empirical electoral research in the Federal Republic . Scheuch was added by his opponents from the Frankfurt School to the group of "flies counters" - that is, the sociologists working in empirical social science - precisely because, unlike Theodor W. Adorno, for example, he was heavily inspired by American methods of empirical social research and on set hard empiricism instead of Marxist-inspired cultural criticism.

The liberal-conservative justification of the Federal Republic

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

In philosophy and political science in particular, there were two schools in the 1960s that had normative claims and advocated a “practical” application of their science. On the one hand the " normative-ontological " school around Joachim Ritter with its concept of a "practical philosophy", on the other hand the " Freiburg school " around Arnold Bergstraesser (but also the circles around the political scientists Eric Voegelin and Leo Strauss ), which are in favor of a Use “practical political science”. Both the Ritter School (especially Hermann Lübbe) and the Bergstraesser Circle (including Hans Maier, Wilhelm Hennis , Friedrich H. Tenbruck and Dieter Oberndorfer ) were constitutive for the initiation and founding of the BFW. In the years that followed, you were very committed to the association in its management bodies. Especially the circle around Joachim Ritter is ascribed a decisive role in the philosophical debate about the “liberal-conservative justification of the Federal Republic ”.

The historians' dispute in the 1980s and the BFW

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

In 1986 Jürgen Habermas isolated the BFW from its historical context and described it as trapped in “suggestive enemy images”. The historians' dispute in the second half of the 1980s thus ran along the intellectual fronts between a left and a right camp, which first became manifest in 1970 with the establishment of the BFW. Both sides tried to define what should make up the spiritual center of the Federal Republic in the future . In order to achieve cultural sovereignty and to develop political effects, the actors of yore found it necessary to portray the other camp as a threat to social development. The use of terms such as democracy and freedom functioned as an important cultural-political instrument.

History of the BFW after 1990

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

As early as the late 1970s, but especially after 1990, the BFW increasingly turned to school policy and other questions of university and educational policy. The remaining veterans of the BFW fought almost side by side with the student representatives against the Bologna reform until 2014 at a crucial point . But neither side had really noticed that. The association later suffered from a lack of money and the old age of its members and disbanded in 2015.

The founding committee

organization

The publications of the BFW included: "Hochschulpolitische Informations" (1970–1983); "Moderator. Communications for the members of the Federation of Freedom of Science ”(1971–1973); “Freedom of Science. Materials on school and university policy. ”(1974–2009), published from October 2009 to December 2015 exclusively in digital form as“ freedom of science online ”.

literature

  • Svea Koischwitz: The Federation of Freedom of Science in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  • Nikolai Wehrs: Protest of the professors. The “Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft” in the 1970s . Wallstein-Verlag, Göttingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-8353-1400-9 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  • Daniela Münkel : The Federation of Freedom of Science . The disputes about the democratization of the university. In: Dominik Geppert, Jens Hacke (ed.): Dispute about the state. Intellectual debates in the Federal Republic 1960–1980 . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2008, ISBN 978-3-647-36758-3 , p. 171–187 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  • Martina Steber: The Guardians of Concepts: Political Languages ​​of the Conservatives in Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany, 1945-1980 . De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin / Boston 2017, ISBN 978-3-11-045428-4 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  • Nikolai Wehrs: “Trend turning point” and educational policy. The “Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft” (BFW) in the 1970s . In: Potsdam Bulletin for Contemporary History Studies . tape 42 , 2008 ( [3] [PDF; 143 kB ]).
  • Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft: Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft. The founding congress in Bad Godesberg on November 18, 1970 . Ed .: Hans Maier, Michael Zöller . Markus-Verlag, Cologne 1970, OCLC 22885525 .
  • Hans Joachim Geisler: Notes on the history of the federal freedom of science . tape 1 . Scientific Freedom Association, Berlin 2001, OCLC 705940123 .
  • Hans Joachim Geisler: Notes on the history of the federal freedom of science . tape 2 . Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft, Berlin 2010, OCLC 857229844 .
  • Susanne Roßkopf: The uprising of the conservatives. The denominational school movement in the context of the educational reforms of the 1970s. A contribution to the history of mentality in the upheaval of the 68s . LIT, Münster 2017, ISBN 978-3-643-13641-1 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  • Christian Schletter: The funeral song of democracy. The debates about the failure of West German democracy from 1965 to 1985 . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen / Bristol / Conn. 2015, ISBN 978-3-525-30079-4 ( limited preview in Google Book Search).
  • Michael Wolffsohn: German Jewish lucky children. A world story of my family . Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-423-28126-3 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  • Gerrit Dworok: “Historikerstreit” and nation-building: origins and interpretation of a conflict between the Federal Republic of Germany . Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Vienna 2015, ISBN 978-3-412-50238-6 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  • Massimiliano Livi, Daniel Schmidt, Michael Sturm: The 1970s as a black decade. Politicization and mobilization between Christian democracy and the extreme right . Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2010, ISBN 978-3-593-41011-1 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  • Jens Hacke: Philosophy of Bourgeoisie. The liberal-conservative justification of the Federal Republic . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2008, ISBN 978-3-647-36842-9 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  • Till Kinzel : The “Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft” and the “Emergency Community for a Free University” in the resistance against the sixty-eight . In: Hartmuth Becker , Felix Dirsch and Stefan Winckler (eds.): The 68ers and their opponents. Resistance to the Cultural Revolution . Stocker, Graz / Stuttgart 2003, ISBN 3-7020-1005-X , p. 112-136 .
  • Walter Rüegg: 20 years of the Bund Freedom of Science. From defensive alliance to think tank. In: Freedom of Science. 4, 1990, pp. 8-14.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Ansbert Baumann: Review: Svea Koischwitz, Der Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform, Cologne, Weimar, Vienna (Böhlau) 2017, (Kölner Historische Abhandlungen, 52) . In: German Historical Institute Paris (Ed.): Francia-Recensio (Francia. Research on Western European History) . No. 4 , 2017, ISSN  2425-3510 , doi : 10.11588 / frrec.2017.4.43170 , urn : nbn: de: bsz: 16-frrec-431707 ( [1] [PDF; 187 kB ]).
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az Svea Koischwitz: The Federation of Freedom of Science in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g Peter Hoeres : Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft: Professoren in Aktion . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . April 18, 2017, ISSN  0174-4909 ( faz.net [accessed February 18, 2018]).
  4. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Nikolai Wehrs: Protest of the professors. The “Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft” in the 1970s . Wallstein-Verlag, Göttingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-8353-1400-9 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  5. ↑ a b Martina Steber: The Guardians of Concepts: Political Languages ​​of the Conservatives in Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany, 1945-1980 . De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin / Boston 2017, ISBN 978-3-11-045428-4 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  6. ↑ Hans-Albrecht Koch : Professoral self-assertion in turbulent times | NZZ . In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . September 3, 2014, ISSN  0376-6829 ( nzz.ch [accessed February 18, 2018]).
  7. ^ Olav Teichert: The Socialist Unity Party of West Berlin. Investigation of the control of SEW by the SED . Kassel Univ. Press, Kassel 2011, ISBN 978-3-89958-995-5 , pp. 256 f . ( [2] [PDF; 9.7 MB ]).
  8. ↑ Thomas Klein: SEW. The West Berlin unit socialists. An “East German” party as a thorn in the flesh of the “front city”? Ch. Links Verlag, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-86153-559-1 , p. 76 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  9. ↑ a b c d e f Nikolai Wehrs: Student revolt in West Berlin. The professors' revenge. In: Der Tagesspiegel . June 22, 2014, accessed February 18, 2018 .
  10. ^ Wilhelm Bleek : History of Political Science in Germany . Beck, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-47173-0 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  11. ↑ Michael Wildt : The transformation of the state of emergency. Ernst Fraenkel's analysis of Nazi rule and its political topicality . In: Jürgen Danyel, Jan-Holger Kirsch, Martin Sabrow (eds.): 50 classics of contemporary history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-647-36024-9 , p. 19–24 ( limited preview in Google Book Search).
  12. ↑ "Fear and tolerance are over" . In: Der Spiegel . tape 52 , December 24, 1973 ( spiegel.de [accessed February 19, 2018]).
  13. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 68 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  14. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 78 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  15. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 277 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  16. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 79 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  17. ↑ a b Benedict XVI. , Peter Seewald : Last conversations. Benedict XVI. with Peter Seewald . Droemer eBook, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-426-44052-0 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  18. ↑ a b Michael Wolffsohn: Hans Joachim Geisler in honor. Memories of rough years. (PDF; 0.39 MB) Laudation for the award of the honorary chairmanship of the Federation of Freedom of Science [with a description of the view of the Federation of Freedom of Science]. In: freedom of science online, January 2012. Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft, archived from the original on December 11, 2016 .;
  19. ↑ Quoted from Nikolai Wehrs: Protest of the Professors. The “Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft” in the 1970s . Wallstein-Verlag, Göttingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-8353-1400-9 , p. 127 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  20. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 229 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  21. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 71 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  22. ↑ Michael Wolffsohn: German Jewish lucky children. A world story of my family . Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-423-28126-3 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  23. ↑ a b Quoted from Gerrit Dworok: "Historikerstreit" und Nationwardung: Origins and Interpretation of a Federal Republican Conflict . Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Vienna 2015, ISBN 978-3-412-50238-6 , pp. 387 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  24. ↑ Christian Schletter: funeral song of democracy. The debates about the failure of West German democracy from 1965 to 1985 . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen / Bristol / Conn. 2015, ISBN 978-3-525-30079-4 , pp. 283 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  25. ↑ Sebastian Balzter: What is life like as the son of Rudi Dutschke? Interview with Hosea-Che Dutschke. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung . December 24, 2017, accessed February 20, 2018 .
  26. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 79 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  27. ↑ Hans Maier: Bad Years, Good Years. Ein Leben 1931 ff.Beck , Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-61285-5 , p. 172 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  28. ↑ Quoted from Susanne Roßkopf: The uprising of the conservatives. The denominational school movement in the context of the educational reforms of the 1970s. A contribution to the history of mentality in the upheaval of the 68s . LIT, Münster 2017, ISBN 978-3-643-13641-1 , pp. 271 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  29. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 122 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  30. ^ Michael Stolleis : Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies in West and East: 1945 - 1990 (=  history of public law in Germany . Volume 4 ). Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-63203-7 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  31. ↑ Quoted from Svea Koischwitz: The Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft in the years 1970–1976. An interest group between the student movement and university reform (=  Kölner Historische Abhandlungen . Volume 52 ). Böhlau-Verlag, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-412-50554-7 , p. 149 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  32. ↑ Jens Hacke: Philosophy of Bourgeoisie. The liberal-conservative justification of the Federal Republic . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2008, ISBN 978-3-647-36842-9 ( limited preview in the Google book search).