Research and responsibility
The enduring negotiations and discussions on the implementation of a Zivilklausel for the Faculty had undoubtedly supersede the enthusiasm and hope to finally come to a joint decision in the last meeting of the Faculty Council. The Zivilklausel was again put to vote and once more refused with 9 votes against, 5 abstentions and 4 votes in favour. Although the professorate explained their consensus on issues such as responsibility and transparency, the legal and moral prescription still encounters unease and the obligation to per se oppose research which explicitly entails military usage seems to remain non-negotiable. However, the alternative draft submitted by Prof. Bernd Ladwig was also not able to express the actual purpose of the agreement. Being to weak in its demands and to ponderous in its implementation, his Friedensklausel also failed with 12 refusals, 3 abstentions and 2 votes in favour.
For more information go here.
Budget 2013
The Faculty council has approved the budget for 2013. Due to better performance compared to other Faculties the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences receives somewhat more resources. The distribution of the resources were additionally slightly changed with 10% reduction for third-party funds and a 10% subsidy for publications. Besides, the library has to face an increase in costs for subscriptions and books which in fact equates budget cuts as the Faculty has no possibility to financially encounter the price increase.
Debate on the support of young researchers
There are several programmes that help the Faculty in their support of young researchers. These programmes provide financial resources that give the Faculty the opportunity to promote highly qualified and talented researchers.
However, the way these programmes were transposed up to now has been subject of recurring debate in the past. The last session was therefore meant to give the Faculty Council room to generate a common position.
On the side of the professorate, one in particular welcomes the given opportunity to support the ‘home-grown’ academics. By consensus of the present professorate and the non-professorial academic staff, Prof. Gerhards had additionally emphasised the advantages that he sees in the current ad personam appointment. Following him, the given flexibility that results from the case-by-case approach would be indispensable for the decision-making.
On the other side, the student representatives refer to the unacceptable deficiencies that occur from this selection process. On the one hand, we criticise that the tender issued in the in-house ‘Amtsblatt’ would – due to its limited range – not fulfil the criteria of a competitive selection process. On the other hand, we once more recalled on the systematic structural changes that would be promoted by the ad personam funding, as simply just one part of the working areas could actually afford the reciprocal financing that is implemented in these programmes.
In sum, positions became again evident but a consensus on this issue is still not in prospect.