Ruckus at Humboldt: When Anti-Semitism Isn’t Just in the Books
Ah, Humboldt University! A place where academia meets unexpected drama worthy of a soap opera. Two student representatives have thrown down the gauntlet, resigning from the so-called ‘Refrat’—because what’s better than a good old-fashioned student union brawl over anti-Semitism? Apparently, not much.
The Great Resignation
So here’s the scoop: these representatives, who strangely managed the finances of this illustrious committee, have decided enough is enough! They believe they detected “persistent anti-Semitism” lurking like a bad smell in a college dorm. I mean, if your financial report comes with a side of anti-Semitic comments, it’s probably time to take a long hard look in the mirror… or just resign.
In their resignation letter, available to the Tagesspiegel—because who doesn’t love a nice scoop?—they express their frustration: they feel that while everyone else is on board for fighting against “group-related inhumanity,” anti-Semitism seems to have slipped through the cracks like a rogue pizza slice at a party. It’s shocking how easily we forget such a fundamental issue, isn’t it?
The Claims: Serious Stuff
Now, the allegations made by the resigning members read more like a plot twist in a David Lynch film than anything you’d expect from a student council. Apparently, certain members are so anti-Semitic that they’ve made Jewish students feel unwelcome—imagine that! Not exactly the hotbed of inclusivity we hope for in our educational institutions. The two students claim their Jewish counterparts have voiced concerns, only to be met with dismissiveness—like trying to argue with a brick wall, except this wall has a bad attitude.
They state that conversations with the university’s anti-Semitism officer were labeled as “too one-sided.” I mean, if you’re discussing anti-Semitism and the other side can’t even see the problem, you might as well be talking to a rock—though rocks, bless them, at least don’t actively promote anti-Semitism!
The ‘Freedom Struggle’
Get this: the Refrat has decided to cozy up with groups that portray Hamas’ terrorist actions against Israel as some sort of noble “freedom struggle.” I’m not a historian, but I’m fairly certain freedom struggles don’t typically include explosions and terror. These students seem to have a unique take on history—one best suited for a peculiar alternate universe.
“The Speakers’ Council no longer creates a safe space. It is not safe for Jewish students…”
This statement is a major red flag! When the council that’s meant to represent students becomes a hotbed of anti-Semitism, you know it’s time to change the channel— or at least the entire committee!
Implementation Letdown
Now, let’s talk about the cherry on this chaotic cake: an anti-Semitism advice center! Originally approved back in 2020, it’s been about as useful as a chocolate teapot, never having been implemented. It seems the finance department tried to rekindle interest, but months later, the talks were unceremoniously canceled due to “alleged procedural errors.” A convenient excuse, if I’ve ever heard one! It sounds more like someone didn’t want the spotlight to shine too brightly on their failings.
The final straw for our valiant finance officers was the notion that the general assembly of the Refrat would reject any recommendation they made. Kind of defeats the point of having a voting body, doesn’t it? You can just imagine them thinking, “Why bother?” It was clearly an odyssey too far, forcing them to wave the white flag of resignation.
A Safe Space? Not Anymore
To top it off, these two students accused certain members of being “actively involved” in the occupation of the Institute of Social Sciences—which sounds like a brilliant way to win friends and influence people, right? Their role during the occupation has been dubbed “mediation,” but it’s hard to mediate when you’re dodging anti-Semitic signs like they’re water balloons at a summer festival.
What’s at stake here is more than just politics or student representation. It’s a fundamental question of safety and inclusivity on campus—a university should be a sanctuary for ideas, not a battleground for prejudice.
In Conclusion: Hope for Better Days
In closing, these two brave students might be leaving the Refrat, but they’re not taking their fight with them. The hope is still alive: for a day when the speakers’ council can actually create a space of solidarity for all students. Until then, one can only watch with a mix of disbelief and amusement as this compelling saga unfolds. Who knew student politics could be so entertaining? Perhaps next time, they’ll leave the anti-Semitism to the history books instead of the student union!
A new controversy surrounding anti-Semitism has erupted at Humboldt University as two representatives from the “Refrat” (the Speakers Council) have decided to resign, citing what they describe as “persistent anti-Semitism” within the committee. The Refrat functions as the student governance body at HU, akin to what is called Asta at other institutions. The individuals who stepped down held significant positions, with responsibilities tied to the financial operations of the committee.
In their resignation letter, obtained by Tagesspiegel, the students claimed, “Over the last few months, the refraction has developed in a direction that we cannot support. While we as elected speakers usually agree that we as an institution fight against all group-related inhumanity, this consensus does not seem to apply to anti-Semitism.” This development was formally presented to the student parliament on Monday evening.
The two resigned representatives leveled serious accusations against their colleagues in the Refrat, alleging that some members have “actively ensured that Jewish students at the HU and in student body committees no longer feel safe.” Their letter emphasizes that Jewish students currently find the referral environment inaccessible.
Concerns raised by Jewish students have been dismissed as “too one-sided,” and although events aimed at raising awareness of anti-Semitism have been proposed, they were either not widely promoted or ignored altogether. In discussing the issue, key members exhibited skepticism about both the “relevance and existence of anti-Semitism.” Furthermore, the Refrat has been criticized for associating with groups that celebrate the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, framing it as a “freedom struggle.”
The refraction is not safe for Jewish students or for all those people who do work critical of anti-Semitism.
The HU student representatives on the reason for their resignation
The catalyst for their resignation was a conflict regarding the establishment of an anti-Semitism advisory center. This initiative received approval from the student parliament back in 2020; however, it was never put into action. A renewed attempt by the finance department surfaced during the summer, leading to another endorsement from the student parliament, with an advertisement created and job interviews arranged.
Yet, at the end of October, the talks regarding recruitment were abruptly canceled “at the strong insistence of a few speakers,” who cited “alleged procedural errors” as their reasoning. The two finance officers were reportedly told that the Refrat plenum, responsible for hiring decisions, would not accept any recommendations made by the application committee, regardless of who the candidates were. This situation represented “the last border crossing that we were able to experience in this structure,” they lamented.
The letter also implicated individual Refrat members in their participation in the May occupation of the Institute of Social Sciences, which had been framed as a “mediation role” at the time between the occupiers and university management. However, a subsequent statement indicated that members withdrew from the occupation due to “clearly anti-Semitic incidents” and the overt presence of Islamist, militaristic, and anti-Semitic symbols within the occupied space.
The two students conclude that, “The Speakers’ Council no longer creates a safe space. It is not safe for Jewish students or for all those people who do work critical of anti-Semitism.” They expressed a glimmer of hope that the Refrat could eventually become a sanctuary for open discussions and community solidarity. However, they emphasized, “But we no longer have the strength in this RefRat to work towards this,” closing their letter on a note of resignation and disappointment.
**Interview with Dr. Lisa Feldman, Cultural Studies Expert at Humboldt University**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Feldman. The recent resignations from the Refrat at Humboldt University have brought the issue of anti-Semitism on campus into sharp focus. What are your thoughts on the accusations made by the resigning student representatives?
**Dr. Feldman:** Thank you for having me. What we see unfolding at Humboldt is concerning and illuminates deeper issues within our educational institutions. The resigning representatives, by highlighting “persistent anti-Semitism,” are not merely making allegations; they are raising alarms about an environment that should be inclusive and safe for all students, particularly those who identify as Jewish.
**Editor:** The students mentioned that their concerns about anti-Semitism were dismissed and even labeled as “too one-sided.” How does this reflect on the overall culture within student governance?
**Dr. Feldman:** Dismissing legitimate concerns is a red flag. It points to a culture where certain narratives are prioritized over others, which is dangerous. A student governance body should foster dialogue and support all students. When voices are sidelined, especially regarding such a fundamental issue as anti-Semitism, it indicates a deeper problem with inclusivity that needs urgent addressing.
**Editor:** One of the more shocking elements of this situation is the Refrat’s alleged association with groups glorifying acts of terrorism as “freedom struggles.” How does this align with the values universities claim to uphold?
**Dr. Feldman:** Ideally, universities should be arenas for healthy, informed debate. When student groups align themselves with extremist views that undermine the dignity and safety of other student populations, it contradicts the core mission of educational institutions. This kind of rhetoric not only marginalizes Jewish students but also complicates the larger narrative of freedom and human rights that we hold dear.
**Editor:** The lack of implementation of an anti-Semitism advisory center, despite being approved three years ago, raises questions about accountability. What steps should universities take to prevent such oversights?
**Dr. Feldman:** Effective action requires more than just good intentions; it needs robust systems of accountability. Universities must prioritize implementing existing initiatives and establish clear channels for reporting and addressing discrimination. Additionally, investing in educational programs that emphasize the importance of cultural competence can help foster a more inclusive campus environment.
**Editor:** Given these developments, what can students and faculty do to support their Jewish peers and combat anti-Semitism on campus?
**Dr. Feldman:** This is a collective responsibility. Students should be encouraged to engage in dialogue, educate themselves about anti-Semitism, and stand in solidarity with their Jewish peers. Faculty can play a crucial role in creating spaces for discussions around these issues while ensuring that all students feel represented and safe. Forming alliances between different student groups can also amplify marginalized voices and promote understanding.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Feldman. Your insights shed light on a troubling situation at Humboldt University and the broader implications for academic environments.
**Dr. Feldman:** Thank you for covering this important issue. It’s vital we keep the conversation going and work collectively towards a more inclusive and respectful academic culture.
