An Open Letter to My SupportersDear friends, dear colleagues,your marvelous support during the last nine months has helped me to overcome the shocking experience following the publication of my article Deutsche Bohemistik - von außen gesehen in the journal OSTEUROPA last April. I am glad to be able to announce the succesful end of my ordeal. As you know, Collegium Carolinum responded to my critical remarks by dismissing me from my 18 years-held position as a research worker in that institution. I have considered the dismissal unlawful, and I am glad to announce that the Munich Court (Arbeitsgericht) upheld my view. As I could no longer believe that Collegium Carolinum offered conditions for free academic work, an agreement between Collegium Carolinum and myself was reached and sanctioned by the Court that I shall be paid DM 150 000.- by Collegium Carolinum without reinstatement. Moreover, Collegium Carolinum has not succeeded in suppressing the discussion for participating in which I was to be silenced and punished. My article had been written and published as a contribution to an ongoing discussion concerning the whole field of East European Studies in Germany. In the end, this discussion aroused large interest. All contributions will soon be available in the forthcoming volume Wohin steuert die Osteuropaforschung? Eine Diskussion (forthcoming, Köln 2000). Bohemistik, of course, is only a minor part of the discipline, but in spite of that, my critical remarks about the present practices popular among German historians of the Bohemian Lands have found a large and, in the view of the circumstances, encouragingly positive echo. I am happy to see my ideas understood especially among those colleagues who are well acquainted with Czech and German history and historiography. In particular, I feel indebted to the editors of the journal OSTEUROPA, who accepted and published three further contributions to the discussion, in which different aspects of my original article were taken up. Personally, I was honoured by the generous opportunity for publication of my second contribution to the discussion, Deutsche Bohemistik – wie?, in which I was given sufficient space to elaborate the most important aspects of my proposals for a major conceptual reexamination of the German studies on Bohemian history. The nine months in between have offered me an unusual experience with respect to the great variety of human reactions in a free democratic society to a situation commonly known from the times of authoritarian dictatorships. Perhaps a historian should not be surprised to discover that most people just look away when confronted with practices assaulting our much hailed libertarian principles; but I was. As a result, my respect for all those who did not hesitate to stand up and protest in public is enormous. I admire their courage greatly and can only hope that personally, I would have also acted in that way, had I been a witness to this or any similar event. Many colleagues have preferred to express their dismay and their human sympathy in private, and I owe them also my deep gratitude. Apart from four of my used-to-be colleagues, my employer, and one historian from Prague, no one has, as far as I know, upheld in public the dismissal. That seems the most important difference between a democracy and a dictatorship after all: today, in a free society, there have been no coersed petitions, no public calls for punishment, no wide support for the unlawful action against me, nothing of the sort that I remember from the days of my childhood in the communist ruled Prague. What a privilege to live as a citizen of a free country! Moreover, I am glad to be in the fortunate position of being able to continue my scholarly work. I very much hope to contribute further in particular to the discussion of the diverse interpretations of Czech history in both countries, in Germany as well as in the Czech Republic. The fact that my book Sudetonemecky problem: Obtizne louceni s minulosti has just been published in second edition and is even selling very well, gives me the feeling that I am not alone in assuming that a reasonable Czech-German dialog about the past has to be based on the equally critical consideration of all interpetations involved, without condemning as "false" any concepts presented by any historian and without excluding anyone from participation. Maybe, those among our colleagues, who believe in using "dismissals" instead of arguments should reexamine Bertrand Russell's hypothesis: "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do," rather than wasting their time with the problems of the Czech-German past and present. However, all those who believe in academic freedom have prevailed this time, and one hopes will prevail in the future. Yours sincerely, Eva Hahn
|
|||||||||||
Last update: February 21, 2000