Category: Position Statement / Guidance

When the Society for Analytic Philosophy was founded in 1990, it committed itself in its statutes to advocating for the freedom of research and teaching—a commitment that is becoming increasingly important in times of growing skepticism and hostility toward science.

The GAP fulfills this commitment structurally by promoting open and understanding-oriented exchange within the discipline (including through organizing and co-financing conferences, supporting early-career researchers, and co-financing PhilPublica), thereby creating space for many different positions.

In addition, the GAP is occasionally asked to engage on specific issues by issuing statements. Some of these requests clearly fall outside the scope of the association’s purpose as defined by the GAP’s statutes, such as statements on wars or conflicts. But how should the GAP respond when asked to issue a critical statement on how individual universities, institutes, or persons exercise their academic freedom in their invitation policies?

Statements of this kind are not simple. To issue them in a well-founded manner requires detailed knowledge of individual cases and thus research that is always very time-consuming and rarely reliable, because it partly involves confidential internal matters. If an incident cannot be independently reconstructed, any statement about it risks not providing context and orientation, but merely fuel for an outrage machinery that is already running hot in times of extreme polarization.

Independent of individual cases, the current board of the GAP holds the following general positions:

• If individual scholars are forced to invite or disinvite persons, this constitutes an infringement of their academic freedom and thus a violation of fundamental rights. This should be condemned unless conflicting fundamental rights or constitutionally protected legal interests were at stake.
• If scholars or academic institutions are also guided by practical considerations when issuing invitations (such as promoting early-career researchers or diversity, but also which political positions they wish to provide a platform for), this is legitimate as long as it is also ensured that a sufficiently relevant academic contribution can be expected from the invited person.
• In individual cases, disinvitations may also be legitimate after thorough consideration of all aspects. Even though a disinvitation carries more weight ceteris paribus than a non-invitation, no one has a right to give a lecture at a particular institution. In particular, no such right arises from the academic freedom of the person concerned.

The GAP is not in a position to issue a statement on every event that could affect academic freedom. However, the current board endeavors to issue statements on serious incidents, provided the relevant facts can be sufficiently well established.

The Board

Members of the GAP asked the Executive Committee to reconsider the Frege Award’s namesake in light of his antisemitic remarks in diaries published posthumously. The GAP Executive Committee and the entire Board considered it their responsibility to address this important and sensitive matter and to weigh the arguments for and against a possible renaming of the “Frege Award” in a rational discourse.

A detailed report can be found on the Frege Award page under the heading Regarding the Name of the Award. A summary of the arguments for and against renaming can also be found there. After carefully weighing all arguments, GAP members voted in an online ballot to retain the name of the prize. The statistics for this vote are also available on that page.

The GAP issues a statement regarding the BILD campaign targeting academics who have spoken out against police deployments on campuses, and concerning statements by Science Minister Stark-Watzinger.

The BILD newspaper has defamed lecturers who, in an open letter, spoke out against police deployments on campus and for dialogue with protesting students, pillorying them as “UniversiTÄTER” (university perpetrators) with photos and names. Science Minister Stark-Watzinger (X account) questioned, in a statement to BILD, whether the signatories of the letter “stand on the ground of the Basic Law”.

Both the protests themselves and the open letter have been criticized, sometimes justifiably, and intensely discussed in the media and in politics.

However, the GAP Board considers the role and statements of the Science Minister in this context to be problematic. We strongly oppose the repulsive and demagogic media campaign by the BILD newspaper.

The GAP Board

On March 17, 2023, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) presented the key points of a draft bill to amend the Academic Fixed-Term Contract Act (WissZeitVG). The GAP is issuing a statement on this matter.

In response to the vehement criticism of the draft bill, not least from #ichbinhanna and #profsfuerhanna, the BMBF has already announced its intention to discuss the question of the maximum duration of fixed-term postdoc qualification contracts once again with representatives of trade unions, employee initiatives, universities, and research institutions.

The Board of the Society for Analytical Philosophy warmly welcomes this invitation to dialogue, as the amendment offers no decisive improvement: for example, a maximum fixed-term duration of three years for the postdoc phase (as in the BMBF proposal) is too short for qualifying for a university professorship. Furthermore, regulations on the duration of fixed-term contracts cannot guarantee what is primarily required: that the states and universities create more permanent positions for mid-level faculty and/or tenure-track professorships.

Instead of new compromise solutions in the WissZeitVG, a joint initiative by the federal government, states, and universities would be desirable to provide the necessary financial and legal framework. This could also be an opportunity to consider paradigm shifts, such as those already presented by the GAP (in a joint paper with the German Society for Philosophy). You can find the paper here.

You can view the GAP’s statement from July 3, 2023, regarding the BMBF’s ministerial draft in connection with the WissZeitVG here.

Nicola Mößner (Leibniz University Hannover) and Klaus Erlach (Fraunhofer IPA Stuttgart) have presented a position paper that offers a problem diagnosis as well as proposed solutions on the topic of electronic publishing and the evaluation of philosophical expertise. The GAP links here to the noteworthy position paper, which can contribute to strengthening the autonomy of the sciences because it contains, among other things, important and valuable information on electronic publishing, the ‘market’ of information, researcher tracking, and information service providers and the metrification of science. The proposed solutions therein offer a starting point for further discussion.

The British philosopher Kathleen Stock has resigned from her professorship at the University of Sussex after, over a period of years, finding herself exposed to attacks from within and outside the university. The attacks included, among other things, public calls for Stock to be removed from her post. After careful consideration, the GAP Executive Board has decided to issue a statement. You can find it here.

A joint working group of the DGPhil and GAP has developed a position paper with options for securing permanent positions for early-career researchers in philosophy, which has been adopted by both professional societies. The paper can be found here.

A joint working group on “Publishing Contracts” of the GAP and DGPhil has developed a detailed and up-to-date fact sheet on “Publishing in Philosophy – Guidelines for Authors on Drafting Publishing Contracts,” which is available as a PDF document here. The last page of the document also contains an extremely helpful “checklist” that clearly summarizes the most important points of the fact sheet. Here is the abstract by authors Geert Keil (Berlin), Erasmus Mayr (Erlangen), and Reinold Schmücker (Münster):

When authors submit a scholarly text to a publisher for publication, they are usually presented with a pre-formulated contract by the publisher for signature, which regulates the mutual rights and obligations. Many authors lack the expertise, time, or inclination to thoroughly review the sometimes very detailed contracts and, if necessary, renegotiate individual clauses. As a result, junior academics, in particular, often enter into publishing contracts that only minimally serve their interests. The boards of the German Society for Philosophy and the Society for Analytical Philosophy have therefore established a working group that has compiled this guide. It aims to assist academic authors in contract drafting by identifying problems and conflicts of interest, suggesting best-practice formulations, and addressing issues arising from the growing importance of electronic publishing. Special considerations regarding the philosophical publishing landscape and publication culture are included.

The first part contains general information on the content of publishing contracts and the possibilities for authors to shape these contracts. The second part provides concrete recommendations for academics who wish to edit an anthology or publish a contribution in an anthology. At the end of the fact sheet, there is a checklist summarizing the most important advice.

The German Society for Philosophy and the Society for Analytical Philosophy are deeply concerned about the current actions of the Turkish government and Turkish authorities against university lecturers at Turkish universities.

More than 1,000 university lecturers recently signed a petition entitled “We will not be party to this crime.” This petition sharply criticizes Turkey’s current military operation in Kurdish regions in its fight against the PKK, primarily due to its impact on the civilian population, and demands an immediate cessation of violence. Subsequently, approximately 20 of the signatory lecturers, including several philosophers, were temporarily detained, and prosecutorial investigations were initiated against the signatories for supporting a terrorist organization and insulting Turkey. Furthermore, the government is creating a climate of fear through a massive public campaign against the signatories. Internal university disciplinary proceedings are also threatened.

The German Society for Philosophy and the Society for Analytical Philosophy regard these actions as a massive violation of the freedom of speech of university lecturers guaranteed under the rule of law. This attack on freedom of speech is particularly grave because it concerns a legitimate and entirely natural exercise of this right and substantially endangers the contribution of university lecturers to public political discourse. We therefore call upon the Turkish government and all responsible Turkish authorities to immediately cease their repression of the affected university lecturers.

Prof. Dr. Thomas Grundmann
(President of the Society for Analytical Philosophy)

Prof. Dr. Dominik Perler
(President of the German Society for Philosophy)

Cologne and Berlin, January 22, 2016