The Senate of the University of Kassel has on 01. June approved a draft amendment to the civil clause. This was 2013 decided as a voluntary commitment, according to which research and teaching should exclusively serve civilian goals. The new draft is intended to overcome the dividing line between civil and military purposes and thus softens the civil clause. We have student representatives:inside the Open Left List (OLLI) spoken, who were present at the Senate meeting.
Which content aspects of the civil clause and possible changes were discussed in the Senate meeting - and with what result?
OLLI: Unfortunately, a change was confirmed at first reading, which reads as follows:
“The University of Kassel is doing research, Teaching and transfer of the maintenance of peace, committed to preventing war and strengthening democracy. Researchers and teachers are aware of the problem of distinguishing between the potential civilian or military benefits of their actions. You act responsibly, to contribute to the peaceful coexistence of people. The University of Kassel supports them in this through an orderly process.”
The second reading and the vote will follow on 1. July. Until then we have to do everything we can, to inform the student body and give them the opportunity, through democratic means – protest, Demonstrations and the like – to take part in this discourse. Incidentally, the discussion has been going on for longer than the Senate meeting on 3. June, Unfortunately, we were obliged to do so, not to pass on any content details.
How do you assess the discussion and the result??
OLLI: We found the discussions to be very unproductive. Delegitimization came primarily from the professoriate. General statements about commitments to peaceful research were taken personally. Counterarguments almost always received the same answer: “We have been discussing things for a long time, “We have to get to a vote” – without really going into the content. This was reiterated again and again, They had already come a long way towards the other side and could not move any further. The only concrete concession was a completely optional consultation by an ethics committee, which may then be discussed after the change. This is not a concession for us.
Why are you criticizing the lack of democratic integration of students??
OLLI: The civil clause is an achievement of student movements - it was not ordered from above, but fought for. We represent this history of the student body, and it is our job, to continue and defend this achievement.
The Senate is aware of the attitude of the majority of the student body. We suspect, that the many precautions, to sweep the discussion under the table, that's exactly what they intended: to avoid a confrontation with the student body. The timing makes this even clearer - suddenly this change needs to be pushed through as quickly as possible. The student parliament had its last regular session of this legislature on the same day as the Senate meeting. Binding decisions, larger actions, a productive substantive discussion - all of this was simply not possible in this schedule. The Senate knows this.
Our suggestion, to at least take a break between the explanation by the University Council and the second reading, was rejected. This meant that any democratic integration of the student body was rejected. No member of the Senate can now hide behind “naivety.”, when the student body reacts indignantly.
And then there are the statements, that were made in the discussions – statements, the students simply deny their maturity. A member of the Senate said something like:, it would position itself against abolishing the clause, because there would be concern if it were abolished, that the student body “climbs on their roof”. That is significant. And then introduce a formulation as an alternative, which is so hollowed out at its core, that it can be read as a pro-armament clause - that disempowers the students and denies us any understanding of the text.
What is your position on the existing civil clause, to a possible change and to a possible abolition?
OLLI: We are against any militarization of the University of Kassel and clearly prefer the current civil clause. That would be our goal, to integrate them into a process, which allows researchers and students, Direct questions and concerns about ethical and social impacts to those involved in the process. We are concerned with uniform rules, which can be applied to specific cases by a commission – supported by trained guests. Individual arbitrariness must be prevented.
We deeply criticize the new formulation. Let's take the first sentence: “Keeping the Peace, Avoiding war and strengthening democracy” – these are abstractions, that can be filled with any intention. These big words initially evoke positive associations when read, but they can just as easily be used to legitimize the arms industry, military research or active participation in war. Put bluntly, it could sound like this: “To maintain German peace, we must close our borders. To avoid war, we now have to send our soldiers to other people's wars. Democracy is in danger – we must fight its enemies militarily.”
Then the second sentence: Researchers and teachers should be aware of the “problem of distinguishing between the potential civilian or military benefits of their actions”.. Where this awareness should come from, is a mystery to us - after all, there are in the departments, who are interested in military research, no compulsory modules on ethics, political understanding of the world or social effects. The word “potential” is also noteworthy: It comes before “civil”, not before “military” – civilian research is thereby downgraded from a condition of “exclusively” to a possible by-product.
The rest is a loose appeal to individual responsibility, without any commitment or verifiability. And the “orderly procedure” at the end? A promise, which may be implemented at some point in the next few years. Questions about this were silenced in the Senate.
From your perspective, what consequences would a change or abolition of the civil clause have for the university?, the teaching and the students?
OLLI: With this change, the University of Kassel loses any critical distance from politics and business. The interpretation of this “values clause” – as members of the Senate are trying to do, Pulling her teeth even further - is then always subordinate to the military discourse, without demanding an academic debate. The defense industry can fill these hollow values for its own benefit and, through its financial possibilities, can easily direct the “consciousness” and “responsibility” left to the individual in the desired direction with competing interests.
Our government is currently actively calling for the dismantling of civil clauses. In keeping with all cuts in the social sector, she calls for the dissolution of all spheres critical of the war, systematically eliminates dissenting voices and thus creates a society, who should see war as the only way out. The University of Kassel does not seem to want to assume its responsibility - to develop approaches to solutions and to critically address these developments, and tries her conscience with a tight schedule, the student body, to pass over. This is exactly what endangers the freedom of science.