ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

The resurrection of "doctor" Schavan – decline in values

We have already extensively reported twice on the case of the former education minister Annette Schavan (read also: "Mrs. Schavan, how more embarrassing will things become?" and "Schavan and zu Guttenberg") – on the one hand regarding the University of Düsseldorf and the stripping of the doctorate for the former education minister, combined on the other hand with the intention to accept a post as ambassador for the Vatican, after resigning as education minister. We also wrote about the situations of Schavan and Guttenberg – in both cases the doctoral theses were plagiarised – regarding their useful employment after this cheating scandal.

With regards to the leaders of the Federal Government, who should be setting an example, people's trust in the honesty of these leaders has been severely shaken.

When Joschka Fischer said that the EU had to learn that it was not only an economic community but also a community of values (in an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) from 29./30.03.2014 on page 2 under the heading "Europe, stay hard") it particularly related to the FRG nationally, even though Fischer’s comments were more supranational, i.e. Europe-wide and international. Within Germany, a decline in values can be noted, which has its origin in the networking of political lobbying according to the motto, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Because, for the always alleged but non existent democratic constitution, which can actually only be described as a sham democratic illegitimate state, this is very harmful to the normal citizens, as their interests are not protected, as sworn in official oath, and a promotion can occur but not for their benefit. It must be emphasised that the leaders in politics and sometimes also in the economy should present themselves as a value mirror for a nation, in which normal citizens can see themselves, and their own understanding of values can be oriented towards this, in order to be a role model. This is often no longer the case, particularly when the case of the resurrection of Doctor Schavan via the University of Lübeck shows that nothing adds up anymore in this country – the FRG – via such networking.

If one university in Düsseldorf – with supposedly the best attitude and integrity – after checking came to the conclusion that Ms Schavan's doctoral thesis plagiarised in 60 places, and another university in Lübeck came to the conclusion that they could still grant the doctoral certificate practically immediately after this withdrawal, and therefore the doctoral title, then something is not right within the university sector in the FRG if a university does not take into account the verdict of the expert committee of another university regarding the withdrawal of the title. And if – as it was depicted in the press by Springerverlag in BILD from 21.03.2014 on page 1, under the title "Schavan loses case on her doctoral title" – the Düsseldorf Administrative Court confirmed the withdrawal of Ms Schavan's doctoral title by the University of Düsseldorf with the reasoning that "the plaintiff cheated" and copied her doctoral thesis in 60 places and if the ex minister still refutes this accusation then this is an affront of an ex education minister to the expert committee, whose objectively verifiable decision surely cannot be completely disputed, even though there is a right of appeal against it.

If Ms Schavan said that she was not only secretly ashamed about the case of plagiarism of the ex minister for economic affairs Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, then this in turn says something about the case of Ms Schavan.

If after the legally grounded withdrawal of the doctoral title, another university makes another decision against that of the university of Düsseldorf, who were the object of this administrative court procedure, and grants the doctoral title again, which Mrs Schavan had just lost, for the reason – and you can hardly believe it, if you have any decency and sense of values – that in her role as education minister and therefore as the agent of her friend Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, she provided the University of Lübeck with €12 million in grants, that says it all. It no longer needs to be investigated which connections and motivations still play a role – whether church and political lobbying connections, whether just political preference by institutions, who receive grants from certain party political leaders – to make up for this mistake, which should now be balanced out on a whole other level using connections with the sham argument of honouring the €12 million in grants from Ms Schavan to this university – almost as a retrospective recognition. There are simply no words to express how such a contradictory decision could be made in a scientific university institution, and then with the emphasis on the material side of the benefits from the former education minister Ms Schavan before her resignation, i.e. almost honouring her friendly gesture to the university, of giving them grants from tax money. It is no longer comprehensible, that the level of a university can sink so low, especially in connection with the former education minister. As Germans we should be ashamed of how values are being trampled underfoot, by people in crucial roles. We see the death of the doctoral title and then the sudden immediate resurrection. This seems very Christian but is the exact opposite in fact. Questions relating to church and state arise here, which will have to be urgently dealt with in future, not only for us, but in other places. If Her Honour at the Administrative Court in Düsseldorf expressly points out that the verdict to strip Ms Schavan of her doctoral title due to plagiarism was "lawfully justifiable", then it shows a lack of instinct by the person responsible at the University of Lübeck to make the decision to give back the doctoral title immediately proclaiming the opposite to the university responsible for the doctorate in this case as pretended documentation of everything that was legally determined, even though it is not preferential for the party and does not relate to federal prosecutors bound by directives and to the home offices of the regional and federal government but rather a lower court ruling. How can it be that a university thwarts the known procedure of another university, and at the same time does not await jurisdiction on this, e.g. also the possible implementation of the normal channels, to carry out such legal acts. This also leads us to conclude a lack of integrity, and lack of values, in the exact place where they should primarily be present, namely in educational establishments. The whole thing only seems to be based on non impartial nepotism and friendly corruption. Seriously, we can no longer weigh up such behaviour in the sense of awareness of values, decency and moral. The opposite is true. And this affects all players in the network who allow such results and enforce their influence, simply because they are responsible for distributing the taxes of normal citizens, due to their position. The whole thing should be described as blatant abuse, whether universitarily regarding the University of Lübeck, or by way of networking, relating to the people affected at the university. The whole thing seen from the point of view of valuation means:
The €12 million grants are now used as justification by the University. The doctoral title from the University of Lübeck, which they awarded Mrs Schavan for this gesture, of granting funds to the university as a representative of the people of the nation regarding rights and obligations, is seen economically by everyone in the FRG as a thank you. This means that anyone, regardless of academic of non academic education, should be able to receive a doctoral title from the University of Lübeck, because the earnings of all the normal citizens guarantee the sum of the tax income, from which the former education minister gave the money to the University of Lübeck. She has absolutely no claim to this doctoral title, because she did not do anything except distribute grants that she did not earn.

By comparison: an entrepreneur who gives universities or other institutions money that they and their employees have earned, to such a remarkable extent that you can call it an extraordinary gesture, have always had the opportunity to receive an honorary doctorate, e.g. as a senator or as Doctor honoris causa. But mind you, this includes the creation of income, and from this taxes that the state can distribute. This is not simply a distribution of money from the earnings of others, as with the ex education minister for this doctoral title – and they should think about this Lübeck – there is no scientific or other performance. The only thing behind it for the ex education minister Schavan, is what the people created, and what for the most part party politics squandered away. And from the rest of the tax earnings after squandering and unsuccessful financial recovery, Ms Schavan distributed it and gave grants in certain directions. To be rewarded for this with a doctoral title, which was taken away from her with judicial approval by another university, is an audacity, perfidy and impertinence in the networking overall. Whether the ex education minister can be happy with this, is a question in itself, and indeed independent of being supported by the party politics, which also played a role in the case of Mr Guttenberg. In the case of the ex education minister, the church aspect is surely more emphasised, and if you look at the matter as a whole and then the party logo of the party that Ms Schavan comes from, then especially with regards to the future solution of problems of networking of church and state, for example via the party logos giving the sham appearance that Christians could be the best national representatives as a party, this is called into question even more, especially after it became clear to what extent squandering is going on, and that those who have squandered were granted a doctoral title, due to individual grants that could still be awarded. No, that can cause a feeling of disgust against this whole foul play. And if you consider that the Federal Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel expressed her complete trust in various people, and then had to withdraw it, then the opposite question is raised, whether, if a large proportion of people express their trust in Dr. Angela Merkel when voting, as already pointed out here repeatedly by MfD, to become the chancellor, then the chancellor should also be obliged to resign. Such friendly services, regardless of how they follow connections, and actually due to the grants that are controlled via party political bodies and leaders, and not according to objective measures, mean that subjectively no decision can be made, i.e. they are no longer controllable, rather decisions should be made purely based on the facts, to avoid such results. If the University of Lübeck is of the opinion that – based on the statement of Ms Schavan, that she would consult her lawyer regarding how to proceed once the written version of the reasons for the judgement were available to them, and that she once again resolutely rejects the accusation of cheating – no conclusive further higher court verdict had been given but is to be expected due to Schavan’s statements and that thus there could be no prejudice until there was a higher court verdict and the University of Lübeck was therefore not bound to anything, then things would come to a head, and throw even more doubt onto such decision makers. At least the blatancy, that the university did not consider what the other one decreed, showed that the sense of decency, morals and ethics, i.e. values that apply to everyone, has been shaken, and especially in the university sector. The fact of using the money to be granted doctoral titles as an honorary doctor, or in connection with the title senator is generally practiced, e.g. when entrepreneurs who achieve something extraordinary with their staff and make donations to universities or provide their own income are honoured, but with the express indication that it is honorary or as a senator. Therefore, it is sufficiently indicated and is an income that is provided after it has been earned. The ex education minister Schavan, however, only controlled what resulted from the earnings of the whole population via tax money, whereby she did not make any contribution of her own apart from that of distribution. For this she did not even deserve an honorary doctorate, or a senator title. Because, if everyone would proceed like the decision makers at the University of Lübeck, then every citizen would have a claim to a "cheap" doctoral certificate, because they contributed a percentage of this grant money – even if only a small amount. But not the ex education minister, who received remuneration for her role, and now in the form of a life long pension. Can we take from the decision of the University of Lübeck, that in fact the whole population are the ones who have been conferred a doctorate, because they provide real services, even if this is only seen in a monetary regard from a university point of view? While those who plagiarised live from the income of the population. Thank you, University of Lübeck, for the doctoral certificate for every single citizen. The fact that this would be costly to send every citizen such a certificate is clear. But we should all feel as if we have been conferred a doctorate based on this decision, even if we do not place any importance on it, because throughout the nation, the significant people from management levels come into disrepute for having copied from others. The normal population will never experience this. We don't allow ourselves to be cheated, and we cheat relatively rarely. And definitely not for such a certificate. The MfDers hereby welcome the whole doctorate population. However, as we know that you did not get this certificate through university studies and examinations, we know that the approval of such a thesis is a result of false manoeuvring by executives without any decency or sense of values.