Forced exmatriculation against anti-Semitism

A study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in March 2024 shows that twelve per cent of students in Germany regard acts of violence by Hamas as a legitimate struggle for liberation. At the same time, the study found that many Jewish students feel unsafe at their university. University groups from the left-wing autonomous spectrum defame the state of Israel, trivialise Hamas and discredit Jewish students. The Federal Association of Research and Information Centres on Anti-Semitism has recorded an increase in anti-Semitic incidents, particularly at universities in Berlin. However, the number of anti-Semitic attacks is also increasing nationwide. The incidents range from graffiti at Cologne University to disruptions to academic celebrations in Hamburg. One particularly serious case occurred on 2 February 2024, when a Jewish student was seriously injured in the face by a fellow student outside the campus of the Free University of Berlin.

"Toothless tiger" forced exmatriculation

Regardless of the consequences under criminal law, the incident did not lead to any study-related sanctions due to the lack of legal intervention options in Berlin. Other federal states allow students to be sanctioned within the university if their activities fulfil relevant regulatory requirements. This includes the offence of committing a criminal offence, even outside the university, if it is directed against members of the university and poses a threat to the entire university community. However, compulsory exmatriculation as the main instrument of internal university sanctions to date is a "toothless tiger", as it is hardly ever imposed due to its nature as a violation of fundamental rights. The Berlin Senate is therefore planning to expand its university regulation law in order to give universities a more flexible approach to offences. A differentiated catalogue of measures, similar to that in North Rhine-Westphalia, is intended to ensure the proportionality of sanctions and address different offences appropriately. In view of the increasing number of anti-Semitic attacks at universities across Germany, it would be welcome if the debate in Berlin were to initiate a nationwide reform of university regulatory law. However, the inadequate response to incidents in North Rhine-Westphalia emphasises that this alone is not enough to respond appropriately to cases and deter potential perpetrators.

Self-image of the universities

The low number of cases to date in which universities have imposed disciplinary measures in connection with anti-Semitic incidents is also due to their self-image as autonomous and self-governing educational institutions. Universities do not see themselves as regulatory bodies and are therefore reluctant to impose disciplinary measures on students and avoid confrontation with activist individuals and groups. Hanna Veiler, President of the Jewish Student Union Germany, laments: "We see universities that are completely at a loss and have no mechanisms in place to combat the current anti-Semitism". The Berlin proposal therefore envisages the formation of internal university committees to assess anti-Semitic and other offences and impose disciplinary measures if such offences are identified. Thanks to their proximity and experience of dialogue with the university community, these committees, which are directly anchored in academic life, could ensure a swift and appropriate response.

Right to binding investigation by the panel

However, experience with existing university committees (regulatory or exmatriculation committees) in other federal states is sobering. In most cases, they remain inactive. In order to remedy this situation, the universities' responsibility for regulatory measures should be extended and enshrined in law as a central aspect of their self-administration. This extension would firmly anchor regulatory measures in the universities' self-image. In addition, universities would have to be legally obliged to take consistent action in the event of violations with the help of internal committees. It would be conceivable that those affected would be legally guaranteed the right to a binding investigation by the committee and that these committees would be obliged – as the Berlin case makes clear – to also examine non-university breaches of regulations for their relevance to the university.

Framework conditions of higher education regulatory law

However, experience with existing university committees (regulatory or exmatriculation committees) in other federal states is sobering. In most cases, they remain inactive. In order to remedy this situation, the universities' responsibility for regulatory measures should be extended and enshrined in law as a central aspect of their self-administration. This extension would firmly anchor regulatory measures in the universities' self-image. In addition, universities would have to be legally obliged to take consistent action in the event of violations with the help of internal committees. It would be conceivable that those affected would be legally guaranteed the right to a binding investigation by the committee and that these committees would be obliged – as the Berlin case makes clear – to also examine non-university breaches of regulations for their relevance to the university.