A discussion about "gender" was to take place at Humboldt University in Berlin, which caused a great deal of discontent. Historian Jörg Baberowski explains what is really behind this protest.
Jörg Baberowski, born in 1961, teaches Eastern European history at Humboldt University in Berlin. His research interests include Stalinism and the history of violence. In 2012, Baberowski received the Leipzig Book Fair Prize for his standard work Scorched Earth: Stalin's Reign of Violence. In 2021 he published his book The Leviathan Under Threat: State and Revolution in Russia.
« Geschlecht ist nicht gleich (Ge)schlecht » (“Sex does not equal evil”) was the title of the lecture that biologist Marie-Luise Vollbrecht was to give on Sunday, July 3, 2022 at Humboldt University in Berlin. More precisely, it was to be about “Sex, gender and why there are only two sexes in biology”. However, the event organized as part of the “Long Night of Science” did not take place – because the “working group of critical lawyers” protested on the grounds of “queerophobia”.
The university cancelled the event, citing security concerns. In the meantime, Humboldt University has announced that the cancelled conference will be rescheduled on 14 July in the form of a panel discussion on the binary concept of gender in biology from different perspectives. The protest against science researcher Marie-Luise Vollbrecht is not the first incident of this kind, however. Historian Jörg Baberowski is being slandered by left-wing extremists. In an interview with t online, the researcher explains how the situation could degenerate to this point at Humboldt University:
Conference on Sex and Gender Cancelled
"The fanatics achieve the goal they set for themselves"
t-online: Professor Baberowski, how is it possible that no lectures on biological sexes can be given at Humboldt University anymore? The freedom of research and teaching guaranteed by the Basic Law should apply there as well.
Jörg Baberowski: Freedom of research and teaching is a precious commodity. In science, it is about exchanging arguments and validating them. It is only from opposing positions that one can sharpen one's own vision of an object. But some are clearly convinced that science is an opinion and a belief and that it must therefore bend to non-scientific considerations. Such communities of conviction only admit what can be integrated into their worldview.
Federal Education Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger also criticised the cancellation of the lecture by doctoral student Marie-Luise Vollbrecht. How can free discussion on scientific topics be guaranteed again?
These movements woke are getting too much attention. It would be wiser for the media to simply ignore such actions, because what matters to these activists is not to seek discussion, but to be in the discussion. They always get the attention they need to gain power and recognition. This is not a favor that should be granted to them.
So who are these activists?
In fact, it is always the same six or seven people who stage these totally useless debates, because the search for attention is their only reason for living, and who try to give the public the impression of being the representatives of a powerful movement. In reality, they are totally insignificant.
So why do they have such influence?
The sociologist Heinrich Popitz called this phenomenon "the loss of reality in groups." Ideologically closed groups gain their cohesion by denying reality, by distinguishing between friends and enemies. The most incorrigible become blind, but they gain strength compared to the many who are not organized. And since such actions meet with little resistance, at least in Berlin, the fanatics believe that what they are doing is not only permitted, but also obligatory.
Don't they also sit on certain committees?
In some committees at Humboldt University, these groups have a seat and a voice that they use to make themselves heard everywhere. Last year, 1,23% of students participated in the Academic Senate elections. They were hardly more interested in the Student Parliament elections. The voters and the elected are in fact the same people. This is the dilemma that every university management finds itself in, having to deal with this reality.
Why does the Humboldt University presidency not ensure that topics that are considered critical by some students can be debated publicly?
The Humboldt University presidency is in a difficult situation, which I understand perfectly. Of course, it is about protecting scientists from attacks. But in this case, it might have been better not to cancel the conference. What could have happened? It always happens according to the same pattern, and each time, the fanatics achieve their goal. Conferences are canceled, scientists are slandered, and they end up being labeled, which are then brandished in public.
How can we restore a culture of reasonable debate?
We must not allow such models of staging and conflict management to prevail. This is also in the interest of all young scientists who are still at the beginning of their careers. The university must be a place for the free exchange of arguments and hypotheses. And it must also be a place where each specialized culture can be what it is. Biologists look at the world with different eyes than historians or cultural specialists.
This is not a defect that needs to be remedied, but an asset that enriches our lives. A discussion is only fruitful if it is guided by the idea that the other person could also be right. If this hermeneutic principle were to make itself felt again in universities, everything would already be almost won.
Professor Baberowski, thank you very much for this interview.
On the same subject, read Gender Debate: A Biologist's Perspective
