Bavarian Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 18/87, pp.
11778-11780.
Worthy praesidium. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.
Yes, it is already quite a while that we again have been allowed
to put forward our draft law in a first reading in plenary session, and yes, we
take it from the criticism of the other parties that we would only be making
pretenses and there certainly might be in the best Bavaria of all time no current
problems in the colleges. Yes, we have again factually examined the draft law
and have continued to find it good.
Herr Oetzinger in his speech of April 15 has referred
gratefully to the esteemed Frau Bauernfeind of the Christian Democratic
Students Circle, the RCDS. I am
allowed to briefly quote the lady. She said: “Cases are known to us in which
students in other colleges have failed examinations because they have not
gendered.” Place before yourselves: Such situations have also been reported in
Bavaria.
From the lady it is then besides no further to Sebastian Mathes,
the RCDS national chairman, as well
as member of the CDU national committee. Herr Mathes expressed himself as
follows:
Speech is here abused for political indoctrination by means of left-green ideologies under the cloak of the equality policy. Students may not be forced to gender. Just as certainly, the so-called gender-correct speech may not be elevated to an evaluation standard in examinations.
One hears and is astounded! Yet scarcely one of the students
finds the courage to protest. The RCDS
will now gather and document all cases in which students were discriminated
against because they have made use of a correct form of German. Should that not
be an alarm signal for the CSU here in Bavaria, ladies and gentlemen?
Who wants to change society, he must go to the schools and
universities. There he finds young people who are directly constructing their
value system, who seek orientation and guidance. The responsibility is all the
greater for those there who educate and form young people; all the greater too
is the danger that this is abused; for school children and students are in a
relation of dependence on their teachers and docents. Ideologists thrive in
making use of this.
Yet how does it relate to the college teachers themselves?
How then appears here the scholarly freedom and free speech, Herr Minister Sibler?
We need not deal here specifically with the case of Herr Prof. Lütge; the case
is well known. Herr Söder without ado simply threw him off the ethics council because
he had a wrong opinion. I am allowed at this point to mention his new book; it
namely has the title – I quote – : “And Freedom – How the Corona Policy and the
Abuse of Science Threaten Our Open Society”. Hearty congratulations. – Herr Minister
Herrmann, you laugh, but this properly would be for weeping. I think the title
alone speaks for itself.
And the Confucius Institute exercises an undue [unbotmässigen] influence over scholarly
freedom and free speech in the universities in Bavaria. As we deliberated on
the problem in committee, almost all looked disconcertedly at the pages and
kept quiet. No one from the old parties trusted himself to here for once take a
position opposed to the Chinese influence. The State government wants in all
cases to caste an “examining eye” on the Confucius Institute; but it does not want
to act.
Ladies and gentlemen, even the general public is affected. The
results of an Allensbach survey meanwhile document how deep the trenches in the
culture war have become. 44 percent of Germans state that one can no longer
freely express his opinion here in this country. That is half the population –
and is largely the result of, unfortunately, having constructed in the past
years a surveillance system which functions with exclusion and defamation. Orwell
– known to you – besides named such thinking as “thought crime”, Gedankverbrechen, in his work “1984”. Much
of this abuse could in fact be effectively combated with the creation of a
freedom commissioner, ladies and gentlemen.
Yet one does not want what the State government does not
want. Why not? Does one prefer to control the thoughts and opinions of students
and docents?
In his April speech, Herr Oetzinger called the freedom
commissioner a “bureaucratic monster”. Why actually? What then are the other commissioners
in the colleges: The equality commissioner, the commissioner for people with a
disability, and the commissioner for data protection? Also monsters?
Teeth-baring, slobbering, man-twisting enormities? By no means! They are an
integral component of the college landscape and these days are no longer to be
wished away.
Exactly so will it be with the freedom commissioner when you
here vote in favor. He will be the sharp sword against the monster of slavery,
against the monster of political correctness and the monster of the cancel
culture, ladies and gentlemen, the sword opposed to the tyranny of censorship.
Unfortunately, the sword arm of the State appears – I must
say, and to the State government – to be asleep. It appears to be too weak to
take hold of the blade which will here be offered him. You could now
demonstrate courage, ladies and gentlemen, and defend our colleges. I request a
vote in favor for our draft law [Drucksache
18/14910].
[trans: tem]
