Christian Peter Beuth, the namesake of the Berlin Beuth University of applied Sciences and the father of engineering education in Germany, a radical anti-Semite? Needs to be renamed the University about it? The dispute over the case is now in a new round. Reinhard Thümer, from 2002 to 2011, President of the College, has presented an opinion which doubts the anti-Semitism Beuths in principle, and thus against all previous historical opinion. In Thümers term in office, the naming of the College fell to Beuth.
The dispute over the name of the donor is moving the University in months. The stumbling block is a speech Beuths 1811, before the German table society. Berlin’s Association with famous members such as Achim von Arnim and Clemens Brentano, had, among other things, the goal is to stop the Jews emancipation in Prussia. Beuth reproduced in his speech against the Jews, emancipation, long to resist anti put Jewish legends, wish “Jewish boys” at the time of their circumcision, death, equated Jews with pigs. Also, as a member of the Prussian Council of state, Beuth fought against the emancipation of the Jews.
Thümer get far in the defence Beuths
In a report by Achim Bühl, a sociology Professor at the University ruled, therefore, in the summer, Beuth had a “rigid Christian”, “ethnic and exterminator of anti-Semitism”. The University could not possibly bear his name. A “rigid anti-Semitism”, diagnosed by the high school Board representative, historian, Jörg Rudolph, and Christian Schölzel. You pleaded but, the FH should retain your name: Beuths anti-Semitism corresponds to only the widely-used anti-Judaic resentment in the Prussia of the 19th century. Century.
Thümer now brings much more to the defense Beuths. He doubts much of the infamous speech in principle. Already Beuths membership in the company he thinks is not backed up. Equally little is proved for Thümer, Beuth posted the first of the literary scholar Stefan Nienhaus 2003 described anti-Semitic speech, really, and has kept. While on the in the archives of the University of Kraków received a copy of the notice “Beuths essay is attributed to the table-company”, of Achim von Arnim. However, Therme suspected a mistake. Finally, the speech does not correspond to Beuths way of expression, but a “loft Arnim was cher motives”. Also, it was not a question of Beuths handwriting. Thümer conceded but, it could be the “different font of the minute-taker”.
“No Prussian, or even Beuth quality”
It was nevertheless “extremely unlikely that Beuth has held the speech”, reported Thümer in the opinion, which is the daily mirror. In this respect, the document was “not sufficient for classification Beuths as an anti-Semite”.
Also Beuths Act as a Council of state Thümer re-evaluated. In a report on the possible Jews emancipation in Prussia from 1822 Beuth had spoken of a “lower mental and moral training”, and of the danger of a “highly perishable Flood” by “Eastern Jews”. For Thümer, he was only the “Rapporteur” of the Committee, and I represented the opinion of the members of the Committee. In addition, the stereotypes about Jews were “in the whole of the Christian Occident’ again.” “No Prussian, or even beuth cal specialty”.
There is great opposition to Thümers theses
Beuth not an anti-Semite? For Achim Bühl resist Thümers opinion speaks to all of the proven scientific findings. And the “without a single document ,with absurd arguments, fictional evidence,” as Buhl writes in a reply. Beuth had been a leader of the state Council and in the report articulated anti-Semitism is by no means commonly. In Prussia, allegedly, all the anti-Semites, “is a common reasoning pattern”, with the anti-Semitism into perspective.
not Remains Thümers approach, the manuscript of the speech manuscript came from Beuth. Here Bühl agrees that the manuscript may have been identified incorrectly. In fact, it could be assumed that it is the font of the writer Beuths or one of the Scribes of the table. The authenticity of the speech was, however, evidenced in two ways: by von Arnim note on the transcript, and the fact that von Arnim in the table according to Protocol on the “comments” Beuths called. It was Thümers assumptions “to an absurd scenario that springs only from the wishful thinking of the author,” says Bühl. The former President of the wool unsettle the debate participants at the University, he had submitted “a document of denial”.
The University President will not comment on the content
“the knowledge of The historical research, to Beuths speech in front of the table is considered to be secured,” says Uffa Jensen, Deputy Director of the center for anti-Semitism research at the TU. They wanted to shake it, to present new historical facts. “But I can’t recognize so far.” It should be the handwriting of the Scribes, “would be only right to verify that the speech was given”. And as a high official in the state Council Beuth doubt have represented his own Position.
More about
anti-Semitism of its namesake Beuth-Hochschule discussed about renaming
Amory Burchard Tilmann Warnecke
University President Monika Gross does not want to comment on the content of the new controversy. The University was in a process of clarification, with regard to the name of the donor. “The level of knowledge, needs to be very high, because in addition to the activists, the campaign for the renaming, there are others that think differently,” says Gross. Past President Thümer to throw first of all, questions should now be discussed. The public will happen at a Symposium in mid-January. Be invited also representatives of the University of Greifswald, which had surrendered after twenty years of debate on the name of Ernst Moritz Arndt, and of the Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg. Two names will be accused of donors such as the Beuth anti-Semitism. “We should not go into this discussion with Prejudices, but for ourselves,” says Gross.
