What do you hope to achieve with your book?
As you said at the beginning, the world seems to have gone off the rails – at least partly, so as not to exaggerate. For us at public universities worldwide, this means we need to become more aware of our special role and responsibility for the common good than we have been in recent decades. Many things that previously seemed self-evident – such as democracy and peace in large parts of the world – can no longer be taken for granted today. These made me think more intensively about my role as university president and the role of public universities as a whole. Are we truly guarantors of the common good? Do we actually aspire to be, and if so, how can we succeed?
We see what has been happening in the United States since Donald Trump became president. World-renowned American research universities are coming under enormous pressure – perhaps also because they have become alienated from society in recent years. Populists in the US, but also in Europe, are promoting the narrative that universities are primarily concerned with themselves and only conduct research on gender, racism, and sexism. This is a distorted image. We haven’t reached that point in Europe yet, but even here, university autonomy and academic freedom are not self-evident. That’s why we should leave our bubble more often and communicate to society more clearly what universities do. In doing so, we must also reach those people who have little contact with science. The clear message here is that universities make essential contributions to solving the truly pressing problems of our time.
In your book, you wrote that these questions have been on your mind since the early 1980s.
Even as a student, I was interested in why societies invest in their universities. What do they get back in return? What framework best serves the common good? Until about ten years ago, this was more of a private interest for me because much of what we associate with the institution public university was taken for granted. Universities cost money, with state budgets financing the lion’s share, supplemented by funds from the federal budget and, of course, so-called third-party funding – additional resources raised for specific projects. In return, we provide teaching, research, and, increasingly, knowledge transfer. For a long time, this was the consensus in our society. But for several years, this consensus has been actively and sometimes unconsciously undermined. That's why I thought now would be a good time to write down how universities are structured in our German system. What should we do better, and how should we deal with the massive conflicts that have arisen in recent years?
The increasing visibility and election results of populist parties of all shades mark a clear trend that many of us regret. But the question is: What are we doing about it at universities? If we conclude that populism does not serve the common good but rather harms it – at least, this is my conviction – then universities must become more involved. I have been observing these developments in Germany for at least ten years. Then came Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and the conflicts between Israel and Palestine – all of which are also reflected on university campuses. In this respect, we as university administrators or as the community of university members are called upon to reflect more deeply than before on our own role, to develop strategies, and to initiate operational changes.
We at the University of Potsdam have witnessed your attitude and commitment on many occasions. What prompted you to actually write this book now?
The trigger was Hamas’s attack on Israel, which led to very heated controversies in society and also affected university campuses around the world. One of the most pressing questions following these dramatic political developments was: How can we have a debate about them given the charged, emotional, extreme, and complex arguments? Where can controversial opinions be heard? How does Germany’s growing role vis-à-vis Israel affect the discourse? This prompted me to think fundamentally about our culture of discussion.
Especially in such difficult times, there are repeated tendencies to restrict freedom of speech, academic freedom, or even freedom of research in order to suppress unpopular opinions. This is where universities must stand up and speak with a loud and clear voice: These are freedoms that we have fought hard to achieve in Germany. We do not simply hand in these freedoms at the door when things get a little uncomfortable. Of course, we must ensure that no laws are violated and that discourse remains within the bounds of the free democratic basic order. This balancing act is analyzed in detail in my book.
This takes us to the key question: Are universities breeding grounds for extremism or guarantors of the common good?
The accusation that universities are breeding grounds for extremists is not new. It already existed in the 20th century. I remember, when I was still at school in the 1970s, how universities were under crossfire for being breeding grounds for the Red Army Faction (RAF). Many of those who turned to terrorism studied at German universities, some with funding from the German National Academic Foundation. So even back then, this debate was being held, albeit under different circumstances. Populists have now revived the debate from the other side.
As universities, we should not allow ourselves to be driven by the media but should actively present our own agenda to the public. In this way, we can contribute fact-based arguments and help form more nuanced opinions. This would also broaden the scope of public discourse and better reflect the complexity of the world. Sometimes I have the impression that we are too preoccupied with ourselves: Racism and sexism, for example, dominate the debates and overshadow other important issues. There is no question that diversity-based approaches and perspectives have become much more important in research and teaching. And universities benefit from this. But perhaps we have occasionally placed too much emphasis on issues such as identity politics and wokeness, which many people outside the academic world cannot relate to. At the very least, we have not explained these issues sufficiently. Public universities have expertise in far more areas than this narrowly perceived discourse reflects. This has given rise to a new form of ivory tower that alienates parts of society. This is now coming back to haunt the entire university landscape. So let me repeat the core message of my book: We should make it clearer that science lays the foundations for stability and prosperity. The happiness of future generations is inconceivable without research, teaching, and the transfer of knowledge to the general public. I would even go as far as to say that a state cannot function in the long term without well-functioning, open, democratically organized universities.
Why is it currently difficult to test the limits of freedom of expression and academic freedom and to speak up when “red lines” are crossed?
This is difficult, but it is one of the core tasks of a university administration. It is a challenging balancing act that is not always pleasant but must be understood as an important social task – especially for us here at the Neues Palais, which was built by Frederick II in the spirit of Voltaire, who was a frequent guest here. Even back then, 250 years ago, these questions were already playing a role. And you all know the quote attributed to Voltaire: “Sir, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It's a very drastic statement but, in a way, more relevant today than ever.
To what extent can science contribute to safeguarding democracy?
Science stabilizes democracy in various ways, as I have already explained using the example of transfer to society. But research is also considered a stabilizing factor in terms of content. Let me illustrate this with the example of the Corona crisis: There, we saw how research in the natural sciences, supported by cultural and social studies, addressed questions of health and coexistence in a pandemic, and sought answers. Within a few months (!), researchers delivered findings that have significantly advanced our society. The success in Mainz was tremendous when a vaccine against the Corona virus was developed for the first time from a project of the German Research Foundation (DFG).
Academic teaching also lays important foundations for democracy. In addition to acquiring specialist knowledge, young adults at universities develop personally into citizens of a liberal democracy, often motivated by the goal of further developing the common good in the coming years so that as many people as possible can continue to live happily and contentedly in the future. And last but not least, transfer also has stabilizing effects – through its communicative impact on society, the training of teachers, continuing education and professional development, but also due to the classic transfer of knowledge and technology: The founding of companies, the transformation of research into development, and the application of knowledge in very different areas of our shared life all contributes to the stabilization of our democratic community. Universities do an incredible amount for liberal democracy, and we need to communicate that much better!
Oliver Günther has been President of the University of Potsdam since 2012. The information systems specialist previously held visiting professorships in Berlin, Paris, Berkeley, and Cape Town.
His book “Die diverse Universität: Gefahr für die Demokratie oder Garantin des Gemeinwohls?” (The Diverse University: Danger for Democracy or Guarantor of the Common Good?) was recently published by Passagen Verlag.
This text was published in the university magazine Portal - Zwei 2025 „Demokratie“. (in German)
Here You can find all articles in English at a glance: https://www.uni-potsdam.de/en/explore-the-up/up-to-date/university-magazine/portal-two-2025-democracy