A joint project by

the Department “Anthropology of Economic Experimentation” at Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle/Saale, Germany, the Department of Migration in a Global Perspective at the Berlin Institute for Migration and Integration Research at Humboldt University and the Institute for Legal Intervention at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR).

Grey zones, red lines

A response to surprise, confusion and fear 

This project began as a response to feelings of surprise, confusion, anxiety and powerlessness provoked by governmental measures to control, discipline and sanction scholars in Germany who criticize the government of Israel or express concerns about the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the occupied territories. These measures included the cancellation of talks or visits by international scholars, the termination of contracts, media attacks, warnings from management and pressure from within institutions. This was particularly surprising and disturbing in the context of academic institutions whose work depends on discursive communication, argumentation and diverse forms of knowledge production and exchange – not only for research and decision-making, but also for daily functioning. Sanctions are often accompanied (and in some cases caused) by hostile and defamatory media coverage. The sanctioning of individuals, even in small numbers, creates an atmosphere of fear across society, distrust with the system, demoralization at the workplace and a climate of self-censorship, especially among migrant scholars in junior positions.

Grey zones, red lines 

Grey zones inevitably emerge since doctrinal legal rules cannot reflect reality in all its complexity. They can be countered by clarifying the facts on a case-by-case basis. Since 2023, however, Germany has experienced a different type of legal uncertainty. It has led to an intimidating environment that affects day by day how scholars feel, think, talk and perceive themselves, their colleagues and German society. These grey zones are about what can be said and what cannot. Academics are increasingly worried that speaking out will lead to negative repercussions in the workplace and in public, with many remaining unsure about their actual rights and entitlements.

The grey zones we confront here are distinctive because, while the nature of their creation may seem arbitrary, in reality they are composed of politically significant red lines. These are drawn by state actors and academic institutions when they apply disciplinary and punitive actions. In most cases, these red lines target specific expressions, including texts, visual signs or forms of dress which are interpreted in a certain way. They often have no clear legal basis and no consensual definition, let alone informed consent, and are thus qualitatively different from legal “bottom lines” such as respect for human dignity and the rejection of discrimination.

As a result, migrant scholars and students experience a divide between the promise and expectation of academic and political freedom and the actual practice of sanctions and control. They also perceive a divide in the academic community which has created not only an urge towards self-censorship but also a loss of trust and alienation from colleagues and the academic setting. This divide must be taken seriously, as it

1. undermines the social foundations for the rule of law;
2. has a negative impact on the morale and working environment in research and teaching institutions; and, furthermore,
3. hinders strategies to enrich research and teaching by expanding the international basis for higher education in Germany.  

The grey zones identified here affect not only the relationship between individual academics and government organizations, but also everyday relationships between academic institutions, students, colleagues and friends, and they place a particular strain on relationships abroad.  

Migrant scholars and students: in between places 

While these concerns have had an impact on the academic world in general, migrant academics face special challenges. For the purposes of this study, we define “migrant academics” as international academics and students who are temporarily in Germany on the basis of academic mobility programs or invitations, all refugee academics and students for whom special admission programs have been developed, and foreign nationals who are working in academia in Germany. In addition, we have included those researchers to whom a “foreigner effect” applies, insofar as certain political attitudes are attributed to them based on their name, appearance, clothing or origin. The relevant factor for our research is whether a person’s residence status might be revoked or their social standing challenged if they are perceived as transgressing political boundaries.  

This precarious legal and social situation has been highlighted by the Trump administration’s border and visa policy in the United States. Apart from their unequal legal status, international and migrant scholars are affected in various ways by moral accusations and social isolation. Since the red lines are linked to Germany’s specific understanding of its historical responsibility, scholars with a migrant background run the risk that they might be charged with not respecting this historical sensitivity. This leads to their exclusion from professional and social settings. However, these very academics and students often migrate to Germany precisely because their freedom has been restricted in their home country. They are particularly sensitive to the importance of academic liberty and have experience of dealing with coercive measures. 

Indeed, though this project stemmed from the surprise many felt over the sanctions faced by international and migrant scholars in Germany, we believe that our research has broader implications. It draws attention to the international curtailment of freedom of speech and academic freedom, a curtailment that includes targeting the precarious position of migrant students and scholars. 

Turn the grey zones into arenas for action 

However, to avoid the risk of uncertainties in the current grey areas becoming fixed rules aimed at control and intimidation, it is equally possible, to turn a grey zone into an empowering arena for action if we clarify the legal nature of measures used to create the chilling effect and if we identify the legal grounds and instruments available for protecting academic freedom in the current context. The law does not operate solely as an instrument of limitation and discipline but can also provide resources for migrant scholars and their institutions to draw upon in order to defend their freedom of research, teaching, public engagement, labor rights and institutional participation. In this sense, rather than serving as a means to rationalize existing political or public discourse retrospectively, the law can provide a contested field where the very conditions of scholarship and academic freedom are negotiated. The law structures how people belong within a community, their mobility, institutional inclusion and public visibility, and in this way it intervenes directly in the possibilities for free scholarly practice. At the same time, the law offers a critical and strategic normative tool to flag up restrictions on academic freedom, to articulate them within a legal framework and equally to provide avenues for resisting them. 

 More specifically, we have investigated the following questions: 

1. To what extent do the various measures that interfere with academic freedom, as illustrated by our interview material, have any legal basis? For example, does a supervisor have any legal grounds to tell a supervisee that he/she must stop expressing certain political views on social media in a private capacity?
2. What factors facilitate the undermining of an otherwise clear and strong promise of academic freedom? These might include a lack of mechanisms to protect the job security of junior researchers, a concentration of administrative power, excessive concerns about the “public image” of an institution or misunderstandings about immigration law and residence regulations.
3. What is the legal framework for defending academic freedom and what strategies does it permit? How can an awareness of the contradictions and inconsistencies of political interference help to resist it?
4. What legal arguments can a person invoke to defend his/her right to freedom of expression in a particular academic context? Might views deemed “unacceptable” by management, for example, still be protected by the law?
5. What should scholars and students who are not German citizens be aware of in protecting their rights? Are there any rights available to citizens that are not available to non-citizens, whether because of legal distinctions, administrative measures or social relations? What additional sanctions might be employed against migrants? 

In sum, the purpose of this report is to sharpen our understanding of the conditions under which academic freedom can be curtailed in Germany and to develop legally sound arguments for resisting political control and defending academic freedom.  

Methodology: legal analysis of lived experience 

The study began in 2024 with conversations between members of the Department of Economic Experimentation at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, and the Department "Migration in Global Perspective" at the Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research at Humboldt University and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. Over the course of a series of online and in-person meetings, we decided to provide a document that will speak to the concerns of migrant scholars and will empower them in concrete ways. As such, we have sought both to understand their subjective experiences better and to identify the legal rights they have to enhance their academic freedom.

To refine our understanding of their concerns, we conducted interviews with 27 scholars active in German academia, including 21 foreigners and 6 German citizens. We identified the interviewees through existing networks and self-nomination of interview subjects. There is a preponderance in the sample of social science and humanities scholars. However, they come from a wide diversity of countries, including South and East Asia, North and South America, West Asia, North Africa and Europe, and they are diverse in other respects such as religion, university status and research interest.

The aim of the interviews was not so much legal fact-finding as exploring the experiences, concerns and questions of migrant scholars. The interviews lasted approximately two hours and were semi-structured (with guidelines on key questions/areas of information to be covered as well as space for spontaneous conversation). The focus was on actual experiences, emotional responses and thinking processes (including questions that emerged during the interview). The limited size of this non-random sample means that our interview outcomes should not be taken as representative of all migrant scholars in Germany. Rather, they serve to illustrate experiences of confusion, alienation and self-censorship and to identify specific situations of legal relevance that gave rise to these experiences. Their concerns revolved, albeit in different ways, around how to safeguard academic debate that is both responsible and free from intimidation.

Based on these interviews, researchers at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights identified questions that need to be legally clarified. Legal experts in relevant fields (e.g. labor law or constitutional law) were invited to provide detailed comments on the legality of specific pressures or threats along with suggestions for legally grounded response strategies. The ECCHR team also conducted additional desk research and interviews with legal practitioners to contextualize these specific legal assessments in the light of broader ongoing legal and political developments.