Position on the planned Bavarian Higher Education Act

The Student Convocation of Universität Würzburg takes the following position on the key points paper on
reform of the Bavarian Higher Education Act1:

1. The basic idea of the key points paper is to elevate entrepreneurial thinking at higher education institutions to an ideal and to anchor it structurally. "Transfer" is to be established as a third task of higher education institutions. We criticise this intention, as it runs counter to the scientific pursuit of knowledge for its own sake – and thus to the core idea of the institution of higher education. Science cannot be evaluated through indices.
2. The concept does mention subject diversity and comprehensive provision as state interests, but with all the incentives mentioned, it drives the university landscape in the opposite direction. Pure results-orientation promotes short-term thinking and competition, both within and between higher education institutions. Research at the frontiers of knowledge becomes unattractive as a result, since the outcomes
   are uncertain. It also hinders any commitment to good teaching, as this does not produce immediately measurable gains. We stand against competitive pressure for renowned study locations and places and reject any development that would result in serious quality differences between higher education institutions. The tendency already observable now must be combated rather than promoted.
3. Through the planned reform, the design of internal structures will no longer be regulated and its conception will be transferred entirely to the university council. This affects, firstly, administrative structures that have proven themselves and could be arbitrarily abolished. Secondly, completely inadequate provisions for internal democracy are being laid down, whilst the authority of the presidency is strengthened. We firmly criticise this de-democratisation. Precisely because of the far-reaching restructuring, representation of all those affected is absolutely necessary. We demand that the new higher education act provides a framework specifying which decision-making and executive bodies must be present at minimum. These bodies must explicitly prescribe representation of all groups. The heads and members of bodies must be determined through democratic elections.
4. We do not approve of the design of the intended "State Student Advisory Board". It undermines the networking and participation already taking place at state level in the form of the State Student Conference (LAK) and the aspiration for a constituted student body, and unjustifiably influences the internal structures of the LAK. Furthermore, student participation cannot be exhausted in the delegation of a representative. We welcome a fundamental legal anchoring, insofar as it includes its own legal personality and a general political mandate.
5. We demand a constituted student body at all Bavarian higher education institutions, as is already the case in all other federal states. The basic features of its composition and participation in the relevant processes must be laid down in the higher education act. The promised independence must also extend to students! This includes a financial basis to enable the work of voluntary groups at the university.
6. Universities are to be converted by default into bodies under public law or foundations. We see in this the danger that they will no longer be bound to state objectives, such as climate protection, and at the same time will be removed from parliamentary control. In addition, private companies can exert influence through the university council or through foundation grants with little transparency
   .
7. With the conversion, the university also becomes an employer. This must on no account result in a deterioration of working conditions and salaries. In particular, we demand that student staff are not paid worse than before.
8. The removal of university presidentsby the ministry undermines internal university democracy. University presidentsshould be elected equally by all status groups of the university and can only be removed by these.
9. The authors of the key points paper want to grant universities comprehensive fee-raising rights. We categorically reject this, as education must not depend on financial resources! The fact that the raising of tuition fees for international students is explicitly to be permitted contradicts the stated goal of internationalisation and essentially stems from a racist dominant culture mindset. The possibility of raising fees for students must be generally excluded!
10. We condemn the fact that teaching is consistently regarded as a burden in this paper. We reject the introduction of an overall teaching load, as there is a danger of one-sided distribution of tasks due to hierarchies, social standing, third-party funding and research strength, or group attributions. An overall teaching load would therefore lead to scientifically relevant and innovative ideas finding no or only limited entry into teaching. Instead, work should be done on the supervision ratio or the temporal distribution of a teaching assignment. Research and teaching are equal tasks of a university and must not be played off against each other.
11. Furthermore, it is necessary that a modern higher education act takes digitalisation into account. Digital teaching must be possible at all higher education institutions, but must not become an end in itself and must serve as a tool to improve teaching through personal exchange.
12. It is generally not a problem if collaboration between science and business takes place in concrete projects. However, if persons who were appointed to carry out research and teaching are released for business activities (founding sabbaticals), or engage in a high number of secondary occupations, we consider this problematic. It not only results in conflicts of interest, but also means that practically applicable innovations are lost to teaching. Furthermore, the question of who bears the risk remains open. It must on no account happen that the resources of an entire university are further depleted through business failure.
13. We welcome the fact that the appointment right is transferred to the higher education institutions. However, the new act must also anchor participation and transparency here. Sole decision-making authority of the presidency – or even a search committee – is authoritarian and not expedient from a subject perspective. Appointment procedures without public advertisement we consider generally superfluous and dangerous, as they represent an opaque alternative to the conventional approach. Since teaching is a central task of professors, we are convinced that studentsmust have a say in appointments.
14. Learning the German language as part of international degree programmes must be made possible. However, we consider it the wrong approach to make this further education compulsory and explicitly integrate it into foreign-language degree programmes. This would not only mean unequal treatment and thus a disadvantage for international students, it also massively contradicts the attractiveness of such programmes. These explicitly also offer the opportunity to educate oneself at the highest level without the goal of permanent residence in Germany, which we support in the spirit
    of intercultural exchange. We do not deny that Bavarian higher education law is in need of reform. However, the present concept is not the right one. We do not want a gold-rush-like "spirit of departure" but a transformation towards sustainable, democratic and educationally strong higher education institutions.

Chair (Michael Kreuzer)