I'm deeply and profoundly sorry, but not the least surprised, that this particular institution treats you in this manner. After all, I spent a decade at the same Faculty (of arts and social sciences of which, technically, I'm still 'affiliated' with as a Privatdozent) and I can testify to the insane nonsense spewed forth by the incompetent people over at HR (here's looking at you, guys, specifically for your incompetence related to, well, HR matters).
Having left Switzerland in summer in 2020, I'm amazed at how quickly this issue has spiralled out of control.
I'm going to cross-post this one over at my Substack, but perhaps you're interested in this one episode from Switzerland that I wrote about back in autumn 2021:
Thank you. Yes, let‘s get the word out there. I had just the most insane comment at Ulrike Guérot‘s repost of the text: „This is not an objective account. We need to hear BOTH SIDES, I.e., also from those employees who were NOT cancelled.“ yeah, we we need to hear BOTH the reports of Jean Améry and the SS officer who tortured him to be fully objective!
The strangest aspect of this moment in time, to me, is the blissful, seemingly eternal sunshine on the spotless minds of those who seek to 'cancel' you. By this is meant the notion that 'the other side' cannot, for whatever reason(s), accept that you (or I, for that matter) might have a case-in-point, no matter what it actually is you're proposing to discuss.
My theory as to why that might be goes a bit like this: by accepting to reason/discuss/argue with you, 'the other side' has to acknowledge the potentiality of your point being, well, possible and reasonable to entertain. Doing so calls into question their own world-view, which will inevitably cause significant cognitive dissonance, hence to avoid these (feelings of) discomfort, the troubling notion must not be entertained; moreover, by engaging in 'cancellation', even the possibility of someone--anyone--bringing up such discomforting issues is similarly rooted out. (And, of course, as an 'added value' [pun intended], there's also the disciplining/chilling effect of doing so achieved vis-à-vis anyone else.)
Finally, as regards the above-mentioned bird dropping, well, I'd argue that 'the other side', i.e., the students, will no entertain having just such an open conversation, in particular if a lawyer is present. (I suspect HR, your 'colleagues' at the department or the faculty levels would not like that kind of 'conversation' either.)
We have to realise first and foremost that this has never been about "the argument": es geht niemals um den Inhalt einer Aussage. Thinking it is about anyone's argument and that they have a "case-in-point" is totally beside the point. This is about POWER. The power of defining the enemy, the power to unleash actual HR or state powers, the power to silence anyone. How is this not fascism?
In the above-mentioned thread on Linked In, I called this person a fascist. Precisely because he feigns an appeal to "objectivity", while ultimately trying to double down on the cancel culture whose existence he just denied. A fascist is someone who encourages the silencing of opinions and, ultimately, people who are critical of the official state narrative: all the more if they deny it. As if to prove my accusation, the accused told me I had committed a "criminal offence". The author of the OP doubled down by saying my choice of words was "inappropriate".
I wonder what you make of this. I am by no means for going round and calling random people fascist, but those who actually participate in prevailing power structures and use this against "enemies of the state", shrouded in alleged "impartiality", aren't they precisely the people who are responsible for the totalitarianism we find ourselves in today?
I agree partially about the first paragraph: it's not about 'the (or any) argument', but I'm a bit less convinced everything is about power. Sure, there's plenty of (abuse) involved in your case, but I'd argue that in this particular instance, we're actually talking about epiphenomena: I find it hard to believe that the students who asked for that interview actually did so with an open mind, rather I suspect that they kinda 'knew' in advance what how they wanted to spin this and how they wanted to print it.
Judging from your writings (both the published literature and your Substack pieces), I 'suspect' you're a very outspoken person who doesn't hold back. Hence, I consider it likely that the students 'knew' what they wanted, which also indicates it's a bit more interesting (relevant) to mull the possibility of a third party 'suggesting' the interview in the first place.
Why would I voice such 'conspiratorial' musings? Well, I think you're quite correct about the ignorance and incompetence of today's student population; hence, the issue arises almost naturally: if the students are not really able to think such things through, who could (would)? (And, no, I doubt that the permanent bureaucracy over at HR is that smart either.)
As regards the 'fascism' issue, while I agree with your assessment ('those who actually participate in prevailing power structures'), even the briefest look at those who 'the West' supports in Ukraine shows that today's 'Fascism 2.0' is coming to us in the guise of 'anti-fascism'.
yes, the students were out for it: the writer of the article didn't have the guts to face me head-on, but brought an "ally", so she wouldn't be alone. I have to emphasise that this *was* in fact the fifth cancellation attempt, but it came from the students in the seminar I gave. They were looking for ways to denounce me since I made my critical comments in class in the previous semester. But what makes you think this has less to do with power and control? Isn't that precisely how a very powerful student body - remember, they are the CUSTOMERS - would use its power to reach certain ends? Who else would be behind it?
Well, if memory serves me right, I wouldn't consider the student body up for that kind of premeditated activity.
Given the way Switzerland 'pre-selects' its future student population via the Gymnasium entry-level exam a decade earlier, and given that many students hail from quite well-to-do backgrounds, I submit the following considerations:
You, too, refer to the students as mostly not up-to-the-task in this regard;
The student journalists who approached you agreed to have the meeting recorded (doing otherwise would be illegal in the Canton of Zurich), which I doubt they would have consented had they been fully aware of what they were doing;
Given that they assured you that you'd get to sign off on the piece before publication suggests 'something' has happened in-between the interview in your office and publication.
As far as I remember my encounters with the history student paper a decade ago, I would consider some Mittelbau meddling plausible. (Back then, some fairly advanced [female] MA students who did the paper received a fair bit of 'advice' from one of my former co-workers who was quite an extrovert salon Marxisante of quite astounding theoretical illiteracy.)
I doubt that the professoriat cares much about PDs and the like, esp. after you've received the Habilitation from the very same faculty, but then again, it might well be, provided you 'out-perform' the professors as a 'technically' non-professorial faculty member…
As to the power/customer angle: it's been a while since I had my last encounter with U Zurich students (spring 2020, to be more precise), but they didn't strike me as either powerful or organised (nor very well read in terms of postmodernist/Marxisante literature). It might be different in your field, but the primary reason you might be disliked by certain students would be these comments--and, perhaps more importantly, their perception you graded them 'unfairly'?
It's actually inane calumny. Young fools they be. The first HIGR mistake of youth is to take ones' good looks, ones' energy, and burst of florescence for wisdom and courage, say.
Wow, you are still teaching? Before reading this article I had been assuming you were probably forced to quit at some point.
Du hast meinen allergrößten Respekt. Bleib standhaft!
These student attitudes are so alienating to me.
I've always been a polemicist, for lack of a better word. If the vaccine critics even gain the upper hand and call for public executions I'll be speaking up for the former corona criminals. :D
Thank you! Nee, ich habe im letzten Jahr gekündigt und vollständig mit dem akademischen Betrieb gebrochen. Fuck this place.
Danach kam allerdings noch eine Cancellation, diesmal im Verlagswesen (dort hat man mir gekündigt, als man meine Tweets entdeckte: zwei Tage vor Arbeitsbeginn). Ich glaube, der Begriff "Zersetzung" aus der Stasi-Praxis der DDR trifft es.
Ja zersetzung trifft es wohl ganz gut. Das ging ja scheinbar einigen Journalisten so. Der Reitschuster hat damals auch einiges erlebt in Sachen Kontoschließungen, gekündigten Hosting-Verträgen usw.
"Both girls agreed to keep my private communication, such as Tweets, out of the text, and even promised to send me the article before its publication."
In 2023, everything is 'on the record.' There is no such thing as integrity. Sorry this happened to you. I very much like your writing.
Oh my, what a clusterf***
I'm deeply and profoundly sorry, but not the least surprised, that this particular institution treats you in this manner. After all, I spent a decade at the same Faculty (of arts and social sciences of which, technically, I'm still 'affiliated' with as a Privatdozent) and I can testify to the insane nonsense spewed forth by the incompetent people over at HR (here's looking at you, guys, specifically for your incompetence related to, well, HR matters).
Having left Switzerland in summer in 2020, I'm amazed at how quickly this issue has spiralled out of control.
I'm going to cross-post this one over at my Substack, but perhaps you're interested in this one episode from Switzerland that I wrote about back in autumn 2021:
https://fackel.substack.com/p/the-kiss-of-death-for-free-speech
Talk about harbingers of things of come.
Sigh.
Stay strong, and please don't give in to these maniacs.
Thank you. Yes, let‘s get the word out there. I had just the most insane comment at Ulrike Guérot‘s repost of the text: „This is not an objective account. We need to hear BOTH SIDES, I.e., also from those employees who were NOT cancelled.“ yeah, we we need to hear BOTH the reports of Jean Améry and the SS officer who tortured him to be fully objective!
This is so patently absurd, it boggles my mind.
The strangest aspect of this moment in time, to me, is the blissful, seemingly eternal sunshine on the spotless minds of those who seek to 'cancel' you. By this is meant the notion that 'the other side' cannot, for whatever reason(s), accept that you (or I, for that matter) might have a case-in-point, no matter what it actually is you're proposing to discuss.
My theory as to why that might be goes a bit like this: by accepting to reason/discuss/argue with you, 'the other side' has to acknowledge the potentiality of your point being, well, possible and reasonable to entertain. Doing so calls into question their own world-view, which will inevitably cause significant cognitive dissonance, hence to avoid these (feelings of) discomfort, the troubling notion must not be entertained; moreover, by engaging in 'cancellation', even the possibility of someone--anyone--bringing up such discomforting issues is similarly rooted out. (And, of course, as an 'added value' [pun intended], there's also the disciplining/chilling effect of doing so achieved vis-à-vis anyone else.)
Finally, as regards the above-mentioned bird dropping, well, I'd argue that 'the other side', i.e., the students, will no entertain having just such an open conversation, in particular if a lawyer is present. (I suspect HR, your 'colleagues' at the department or the faculty levels would not like that kind of 'conversation' either.)
We have to realise first and foremost that this has never been about "the argument": es geht niemals um den Inhalt einer Aussage. Thinking it is about anyone's argument and that they have a "case-in-point" is totally beside the point. This is about POWER. The power of defining the enemy, the power to unleash actual HR or state powers, the power to silence anyone. How is this not fascism?
In the above-mentioned thread on Linked In, I called this person a fascist. Precisely because he feigns an appeal to "objectivity", while ultimately trying to double down on the cancel culture whose existence he just denied. A fascist is someone who encourages the silencing of opinions and, ultimately, people who are critical of the official state narrative: all the more if they deny it. As if to prove my accusation, the accused told me I had committed a "criminal offence". The author of the OP doubled down by saying my choice of words was "inappropriate".
I wonder what you make of this. I am by no means for going round and calling random people fascist, but those who actually participate in prevailing power structures and use this against "enemies of the state", shrouded in alleged "impartiality", aren't they precisely the people who are responsible for the totalitarianism we find ourselves in today?
I agree partially about the first paragraph: it's not about 'the (or any) argument', but I'm a bit less convinced everything is about power. Sure, there's plenty of (abuse) involved in your case, but I'd argue that in this particular instance, we're actually talking about epiphenomena: I find it hard to believe that the students who asked for that interview actually did so with an open mind, rather I suspect that they kinda 'knew' in advance what how they wanted to spin this and how they wanted to print it.
Judging from your writings (both the published literature and your Substack pieces), I 'suspect' you're a very outspoken person who doesn't hold back. Hence, I consider it likely that the students 'knew' what they wanted, which also indicates it's a bit more interesting (relevant) to mull the possibility of a third party 'suggesting' the interview in the first place.
Why would I voice such 'conspiratorial' musings? Well, I think you're quite correct about the ignorance and incompetence of today's student population; hence, the issue arises almost naturally: if the students are not really able to think such things through, who could (would)? (And, no, I doubt that the permanent bureaucracy over at HR is that smart either.)
As regards the 'fascism' issue, while I agree with your assessment ('those who actually participate in prevailing power structures'), even the briefest look at those who 'the West' supports in Ukraine shows that today's 'Fascism 2.0' is coming to us in the guise of 'anti-fascism'.
yes, the students were out for it: the writer of the article didn't have the guts to face me head-on, but brought an "ally", so she wouldn't be alone. I have to emphasise that this *was* in fact the fifth cancellation attempt, but it came from the students in the seminar I gave. They were looking for ways to denounce me since I made my critical comments in class in the previous semester. But what makes you think this has less to do with power and control? Isn't that precisely how a very powerful student body - remember, they are the CUSTOMERS - would use its power to reach certain ends? Who else would be behind it?
Well, if memory serves me right, I wouldn't consider the student body up for that kind of premeditated activity.
Given the way Switzerland 'pre-selects' its future student population via the Gymnasium entry-level exam a decade earlier, and given that many students hail from quite well-to-do backgrounds, I submit the following considerations:
You, too, refer to the students as mostly not up-to-the-task in this regard;
The student journalists who approached you agreed to have the meeting recorded (doing otherwise would be illegal in the Canton of Zurich), which I doubt they would have consented had they been fully aware of what they were doing;
Given that they assured you that you'd get to sign off on the piece before publication suggests 'something' has happened in-between the interview in your office and publication.
As far as I remember my encounters with the history student paper a decade ago, I would consider some Mittelbau meddling plausible. (Back then, some fairly advanced [female] MA students who did the paper received a fair bit of 'advice' from one of my former co-workers who was quite an extrovert salon Marxisante of quite astounding theoretical illiteracy.)
I doubt that the professoriat cares much about PDs and the like, esp. after you've received the Habilitation from the very same faculty, but then again, it might well be, provided you 'out-perform' the professors as a 'technically' non-professorial faculty member…
As to the power/customer angle: it's been a while since I had my last encounter with U Zurich students (spring 2020, to be more precise), but they didn't strike me as either powerful or organised (nor very well read in terms of postmodernist/Marxisante literature). It might be different in your field, but the primary reason you might be disliked by certain students would be these comments--and, perhaps more importantly, their perception you graded them 'unfairly'?
It's actually inane calumny. Young fools they be. The first HIGR mistake of youth is to take ones' good looks, ones' energy, and burst of florescence for wisdom and courage, say.
Wow, you are still teaching? Before reading this article I had been assuming you were probably forced to quit at some point.
Du hast meinen allergrößten Respekt. Bleib standhaft!
These student attitudes are so alienating to me.
I've always been a polemicist, for lack of a better word. If the vaccine critics even gain the upper hand and call for public executions I'll be speaking up for the former corona criminals. :D
Thank you! Nee, ich habe im letzten Jahr gekündigt und vollständig mit dem akademischen Betrieb gebrochen. Fuck this place.
Danach kam allerdings noch eine Cancellation, diesmal im Verlagswesen (dort hat man mir gekündigt, als man meine Tweets entdeckte: zwei Tage vor Arbeitsbeginn). Ich glaube, der Begriff "Zersetzung" aus der Stasi-Praxis der DDR trifft es.
Wow, was für ein absurdes Beispiel von "Kontaktschuld".
Apropos DDR: hast Du das hier 'schon' gesehen:
https://juedischerundschau.de/article.2021-01.wie-anetta-kahane-in-der-ddr-juden-denunzierte.html
Ja
Ja zersetzung trifft es wohl ganz gut. Das ging ja scheinbar einigen Journalisten so. Der Reitschuster hat damals auch einiges erlebt in Sachen Kontoschließungen, gekündigten Hosting-Verträgen usw.
"Both girls agreed to keep my private communication, such as Tweets, out of the text, and even promised to send me the article before its publication."
In 2023, everything is 'on the record.' There is no such thing as integrity. Sorry this happened to you. I very much like your writing.
Thank you so much!
I always wondered why the Swiss cheese is so always perfectly neutral. It really helps.