Which are the blacklisted universities?

Herderblog.net

So, now it's enough to deal with my case at the time of the turning point, lean back in my armchair. But no sooner have I made myself really comfortable in it than Peer Pasternak's dissertation comes into my sight again and whispers to me: You are not allowed to pause yet, your case can be assigned and classified with Pasternak's help. So further:

"Democratic Renewal". A university-historical study of the East German university conversion 1989 - 1995. With two case studies University of Leipzig and Humboldt University of Berlin, Accepted for a doctorate in 1998 from Faculty 1 (Education) at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg. In: Wittenberger Hochschulforschung, ed. by Jan-Hendrik Olbertz. German studies publisher.

The author (born 1963) has been giving the Zs since 91. University and has worked at the HoF Institute for University Research at the University of Wittenberg since 1997 and as a lecturer in political science at the University of Leipzig. As the title shows, the dissertation examines the changes in the universities of the former GDR during the specified period, which are commonly summarized under the term "Democratic Renewal" (the quotation marks are set by Pasternak). A central concern of the work is formulated as follows: What democratic quality can be attested to a university restructuring which has been completed - as a result of the collapse of the state socialist system - and which has been apostrophized as 'democratic renewal' in the intention and assessment of those involved in the process, including those who determine the process? (P.18)

Anyone who wants to find out more about the complex, contradicting redesign processes and their evaluation beyond the case perspective described in this blog will find enough informative material and fact-based assignments, classifications and generalized evaluations in this work. So my assessment of the 'university renewal' / the 'university reorganization' / the transfer process coincides with the view that Meyer (ed.) In “Reorganization of the universities in East Germany. Scenarios - Frictions - Options - Statistics "(93) represents:" The East German higher education system, instead of freeing it from the political appropriations of the GDR regime, was subsequently politically overdone. It was rejected as a scientific system and it was perceived as the location of a scientific elite to be abolished. "(P.30)

The processing carried out could enable blog readers to form their own picture of what they may have just read here, e.g. in the article Chased away with no good reason. Reading the dissertation is definitely worthwhile, also because the narration takes up a relatively broad space and is highly remembered for those interested in the revolutionary turning point. Understandably, I was particularly interested in Chapter III in the given context Empirical test for the democratic example I: The personnel renewal of the (Karl-Marx) University of Leipzig 1989 - 1995, because my case is also indirectly dealt with in the most varied of places, although the Herder Institute does not play a role in it, which it does not have to play there either.

I will confine myself to a few fruitful points of reference which, in one way or another, may corroborate what I have written so far about my first discharge. In order to stay close to the text, quite a lot is intentionally quoted here. The corresponding quotations are marked by the page references. The literature referred to by the author is not documented. The original can be found at any time. The quotations from the sources are marked with '…'.

Not an isolated case

Although there are "no more precise figures on the recommendations of the personnel committees, the resulting dismissals and possibly successful judicial challenges to such dismissals", at least 50 "successfully challenged dismissals" are identified at Leipzig University. So we have a classification number. As far as Saxony as a whole is concerned, there is talk of 333 dismissed persons who have called labor courts, of which “20 ended with a plaintiff verdict”. So I fall under that category. There were also 26 dismissals, 55 withdrawals, 157 ordinary dismissals without severance payment (settlement), 32 due to amicable dissolution without severance payment. (See p.178). Like any statistic, this one is also limping. I know several former university members who did not find their way to the labor court for a variety of reasons, although based on my experience they would have had the prospect of success in one way or another: ignorance, skepticism about the West German enforced courts, intimidation, dejection, transgression the period of action and much more could have kept those affected.

Blacklists

Although this was denied by the Ministry of Education for a long time, I knew from the beginning of its existence that the Ministry of Science had drawn up a black list that amounted to a professional ban in Saxony. Although the names have of course not been revealed to this day, mine is certainly on them - thanks to the personnel commission under Dr. Ulla Fix. I choose the present tense here with care because I have not yet heard that they were verifiably destroyed or even that my name was deleted after the clear outcome of the labor court ruling. Actually one should have declared the publication and destruction of such an indecent, undemocratic list, but it is too late for that anyway and that is not a demand that Pasternak is making. Among other things, he speaks of a “data protection accident” towards the end of 1992 (p.185), elsewhere the corresponding procedure seems “strange” to him: “At that time, the Minister of Science had a list of all the people for whom I (ie: he - ML) had initiated a dismissal procedure due to a lack of personal suitability ', and had it sent to the Saxon rectors. These did not only list all persons who had already been legally dismissed on the basis of recommendations from the personnel commission. Rather, the lists also included all those who were still in labor court proceedings, those who had not yet received a dismissal (but should probably have received one), and finally some who had been dismissed 'for lack of need'. The lists contained a total of 884 names. ”(P.187f.) Well wonderful!

Personnel commissions in the backlight are not without controversy

One must certify Pasternak, even if he cannot be approved in every case, that he tries to give a balanced assessment of the work of the personnel committees. However, he cannot avoid critically examining individual cases of termination and statements p.179ff.), In which I find my case in one form or another, because they are clearly problematic for everyone. He states: “Such incidents, highly suitable for media exploitation, damaged the personnel review process, which was provided with precarious expectations and suspicions from the outset, in its public perception - also outside the university ... This identified a problem that did indeed exist also offered no immediate solution. However, there was public ignorance not only about the respective personal reasons for making decisions. The actual decision-making procedure was also unknown, unless it was already regulated in the PC working order. "(188f.) At the same time, it is emphasized that the commission representatives tried from a certain point in time to" at least make these PC procedures more transparent. " I didn't notice anything of that, though. In this context, the author quotes Ulla Fix (1995), who has already been mentioned several times in my blog: 'To counter loud and quiet suspicions about the work of such commissions with something tangible ... Then it becomes clear that the accusation that they are in the commissions Power relations have only been reversed or even that the abuse of power is worse than in the GDR, which is clearly wrong. (P. 189f.) (Why actually 'clearly wrong ‘, would you like to ask the text linguist?) Even if such suspicions have not been voiced by me, I can tell the chairman of the Personnel Commission Dr. With the best of intentions, Ulla Fix cannot spare the following allegations, which are supported by investigations by Pasternak:

    1. In his case it can be read that every accused had the right to “submit a written self-presentation of the facts against which he was charged” (p. 189). In my case there was no result, but I repeatedly complained in various texts.
    2. "Before that, the accused had the opportunity to look into the files and to speak with the documents and with PK members about the procedure in a legal hearing." (P.189) No report. Miss Dr. On the contrary, Ulla Fix personally advised me not to do any research or to take any action to relieve my burden: 'That would only make things worse' (phone call). To this day she has not wanted to make it clear to me what could be 'worse' in my case. I will not assume that Ms. Fix, but her understanding of the commission at the time does not seem to be very far from the chairman of a personnel commission whom the lawyer Gäbelein quotes: The statement by a Leipzig lawyer is also not uninteresting, "who was involved in the judicial follow-up of the PK- Decisions was intensively involved ”, and on this he formulated:“ In this way, according to Section 78 (2) SHEG, the personnel commissions would have the opportunity for those affected to comment to all must grant documents used by them. But that did not happen in any of the cases she was working on. This would not have been possible at all, since the PK chairman was obliged according to SHEG to `` prepare the resolution of the commission in such a way that a decision is usually possible in a meeting of the commission. '' (§78 para. 3 SHEG) . ”(P.189) I did not know this rule up to now and it still causes me to experience an aha while writing. But afterwards she explains to me the unchristian haste with which I was dispatched and the various attempts to throw off my arguments that were understandable for everyone and that could not be carried out in the short commission meeting. For example, a telephone conversation with a colleague from Munich University, Prof. Dietrich Krusche, would have been necessary in order to be able to present evidence of my evidence. (see. Chased away with no good reason on this blog.)
    3. But it goes even further: "The handling of the written statements of those to be heard was also contestable" (p.189). In my case it was not even wanted, and I had to push through with stoic persistence that my clear refutations of the allegations, which were in themselves absurd, were accepted at all. Which of these questionable allegations was passed on and in which version remains completely in the dark. Correct: Only those in the dark cannot be seen. (Moritat from Mackie Messer)
    4. “If then the chairman complains in magazine articles that those affected are now making use of all the (labor) legal options available to them instead of voluntarily quitting the service, this not only testifies to a wrong understanding of the law, but also raises the question of the success of the university renewal. "(p.191)
    5. “The person of trust who was allowed to be brought to the hearing according to the work regulations, could also express himself or herself at her request in the legal hearing.” (Fix 1995, 20) (p.189) Since I didn't even know what I was could have been blamed, I had no reason to bring anyone with me. In addition, there were enough commissioners who had my confidence so far, e.g. Dr. Johannes Wenzel (see the article Beneficiary ...), also my non-party secretary, Ms. Renate Dähnert, enjoyed my full confidence. It was just that I wasn't allowed to ask any questions to the commissioners anyway, and they couldn't answer my questions. Hard to imagine today after 20 years and yet it is true. For me, the hearing was simply, as they say today, a questioning in an amateurish interrogation format. In fact, I felt like senior physician Christof Schindler from the University Women's Clinic in Leipzig, who reported on his hearing at the PK (Th. Mayer 1992): 'I'm sitting in an hour-long interrogation across from the Personnel Commission and I know some of them Men's. During the GDR era, Professor Pliquett was the head of the DSF for medical professionals, Professor Reuter (by the way, my doctor for a long time - ML) worked as an AGL man, and the head of the commission, Professor Matzen, had his merits in civil defense . '(P.187)
    6. 'Mixed feelings' (p.185) could arise, especially when you walked into the hearing with a little naive eyes like me.
    7. While in some grounds for dismissal no specific facts were formulated, although according to Appendix I, Chap. XIX Subject A, Section III, Clause 1, Paragraph 5 of the Unification Treaty (see p.179), my letter of dismissal contained two specific reasons. But they were demonstrably wrong or misleading, quite apart from sloppy, incorrect formulations, of which I don't know, of course, whether the legwork of the Personnel Commission under Fix or the Dresden Ministry of Science is responsible.
    8. And when “Ulla Fix, spokeswoman for a personnel commission in Leipzig” (p.190), finds herself in an 'environment in which trivialized and correctly interpreted tendentious remembering ... is more the normal' and 'the work of a personnel commission is remembrance work, remembrance work in that sense that an attempt is being made to reconstruct a piece of the individual and collective past as objectively as possible '(Fix 1995, 19), I can only say succinctly here, because she vastly overestimates the work of the personnel commissions. As a scientist, she ought to know that such clearly politically defined quick review procedures in an overheated atmosphere of the accused, which is also characterized by existential fears, can only contribute to an objective coming to terms with the past to a limited extent. For example, I had no opportunity at all to help 'reconstruct individual and collective past' in the short time of my hearing. She should have done without the beautiful appearance of the scientific processing of the past by the personnel committees.
      Finally, I do not want to hide the fact that I have occasionally asked myself why two members of "my" commission and the chairwoman herself were appointed professor after the fall of the Wall, Dr. Horst Weber did not, although he provided one of the two 'reasons for dismissal', but then stayed away from the court hearing, to which he had been invited in writing, without excuse. In general, it would be enlightening if a thorough investigation were made of the criteria according to which an appointment was actually made after the fall of the Wall and how the appointments have proven themselves in research and teaching. The fact that the “second set” got a chance from the “West” is largely undisputed today. A number spits around in my head that I unfortunately cannot yet substantiate (and actually don't want to substantiate because the exact number is not so important): In 1989 there would have been around 1,000 unemployed German scholars who vehemently responded to the East German Labor market crowded.

 

Review criteria

With great interest I read the struggle for the catalog of criteria for the integrity check, which is extensively researched in this thesis. To want to present the criteria here in detail would go far beyond this blog post. If there is someone who is interested, he or she could obtain the necessary information from Löschmann and measure it against the relevant criteria. I assure you that you will hardly find a criterion that justifies my discharge, unless the chair / the corresponding area of ​​responsibility has ceased to exist.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I refuse to critically and self-critically reassess my life and work. I think that's already in that herderblog appears and will be there and in mine Fragments of memory continue.