As members of Europa-Universität Flensburg, we publicly declare our solidarity with those affected by right-wing violence and with those who stand up against it. We endorse the following commitment to an antifascist Europa-Universität Flensburg.

Background

Over the Easter weekend (5–7 April 2026), the offices of the CDU, SPD, The Left Party, the Greens, and the SSW in Flensburg were attacked with incendiary devices. In addition to traces of arson, German flags had been spray-painted on the buildings and far-right stickers were found at the scenes. Other institutions in Flensburg, such as the community center Infoladen Subtilus and the queer center FLENSBUNT, are also regularly targeted by far-right attacks.

According to independent monitoring conducted by Zebra e.V., Schleswig-Holstein recorded an average of three right-wing, racist, and antisemitic attacks per week in 2025. At the beginning of this year, a large swastika was scratched into the frozen lake between the Audimax and the library on the Flensburg campus itself, while far-right stickers and graffiti have increasingly appeared in the surrounding area.

Researchers, too, are increasingly becoming targets—for example through parliamentary inquiries calling on universities to identify by name scholars working in fields such as gender studies, migration studies, sustainability research, or postcolonial studies.

Commitment to Antifascism

We, the members of Europa-Universität Flensburg, affirm our commitment to antifascism.

At a time when academic freedom is under attack around the world—and when, in countries such as the United States, these attacks are accompanied by attempts to criminalize resistance to them as terrorism—universities must not hide behind a misplaced or superficial notion of political neutrality.

We must call things by their proper name: the far-right ideology of racial war and the alleged threat of the “death of the nation” (Volkstod), which it claims can only be prevented through racist, anti-feminist, and anti-queer attacks on human rights, fundamentally challenges our peaceful coexistence in freedom and dignity. We are all under attack long before science itself becomes a direct target, and we must respond accordingly. Whether the victims are unhoused people, persons with disabilities, refugees, the unemployed, or religious minorities, the enemies of our freedom constantly seek and find scapegoats whom they claim are poisoning the blood of their “people.”

At this point, we commemorate Ingo Finnern, an unhoused Sinto man who was murdered by a far-right extremist in Flensburg Harbor on 19 March 1992 after opposing the perpetrator’s racist agitation, as well as the tens of thousands of people who lose their lives each year to the illusion of an “ethnically” homogeneous Europe.

We affirm our commitment to antifascism also in light of the historical legacy of Nazi terror in Germany. The final government of the Nazi regime was arrested in Mürwik in May 1945. Only one year later, the Flensburg College of Education—the institution that would become today’s Europa-Universität Flensburg—began operating at the same location. This circumstance alone spares us the shame of having to look back on denunciations of “non-Aryan” or politically undesirable fellow students and colleagues at our own university. As Schleswig-Holstein’s first democratically founded institution of higher education after the end of the Nazi dictatorship, we carry an explicit mandate to educate for responsible action within a free and democratic constitutional state. Antifascism is therefore not external to our university; it is embedded in its founding mission. We remain committed to that mission.

In the face of the global resurgence of anti-human politics and far-right hate crimes, including on our own campus, we will oppose these attacks. We stand in protection of those members of our university who are particularly targeted by this hatred. And to all those around the world who courageously confront it, we say:

You are not alone. We are all antifascists.

The publication of the administrative recommendation on the traffic design for the Flensburg Schiffbrücke marks a critical moment in the city’s urban development. While the city administration favors Variant 1 for the meeting of the Planning Committee (SUPA) on 12 May 2026, this decision stands in stark contradiction to the goals of a modern, climate-neutral university city and to the clearly expressed will of its citizens.

I. The Planning Variants in Detail: Between the Status Quo and a Vision for the Future

To understand the significance of this decision, the technical differences between the proposed concepts must be examined:

Variant 1 (“The Cautious First Step” – Recommended by the City Administration): Motorized vehicle traffic remains permitted as through traffic in both directions. The administration prioritizes the avoidance of traffic displacement over improving the quality of public space and the harbor waterfront experience.

Variant 2 (“Partial Traffic Calming”): Closure of Willy-Brandt-Platz to through traffic; motorized vehicle traffic would only continue as a one-way street heading north.

Variant 3 (“The Comprehensive Solution”): Complete closure to through traffic for motorized vehicles. This would make it possible to create an approximately 17-meter-wide promenade and public space along the waterfront quay.

II. Strategic Failure: “Flensburg 2030+” Is Being Ignored

The urban development strategy “Flensburg 2030+” and the Mobility Master Plan clearly call for a reduction in motorized individual transport (MIT) and a redistribution of public space in favor of sustainable modes of transport.

However, the administration’s current recommendation offers no solution for how these strategic goals are to be implemented across the city as a whole. Instead of reducing car traffic citywide as previously agreed, the problem is merely being managed rather than solved. Anyone who cites potential additional traffic in side streets as an argument against calming traffic at the Schiffbrücke is avoiding the responsibility to develop a genuine traffic management strategy that reduces overall dependence on private cars.

III. A Clear Public Mandate: Results from flensburg-mitmachen.de

A key counterargument to the administration’s recommendation is provided by the results of the online participation process (Poll 12) on the official platform flensburg-mitmachen.de. The survey reveals a clear picture of public opinion within the city:

When asked whether the Schiffbrücke should be designed “without parking spaces and car traffic,” an overwhelming majority of 343 participants answered “Yes.”

Only 36 people voted “No,” while 123 participants at least supported a Schiffbrücke “without parking spaces.”

Together with the vote of the Harbor Delegation (14 out of 18 votes in favor of Variant 3), a clear message emerges: the people of Flensburg want to reclaim the harbor for public life. By nevertheless recommending Variant 1, the administration devalues the entire participation process and disregards the democratically expressed wishes of the citizens.

IV. The Perspective of the Student Body: Space for People

From the perspective of students, the Schiffbrücke is currently dominated by car traffic, asphalt, and wasted potential. We call for a “social waterfront campus” and infrastructure that is safe enough for children to ride bicycles there without fear.

V. Conclusion and Demand

Variant 1 is not a compromise — it is strategic stagnation. We call on the Planning Committee to follow the vote of the citizens on flensburg-mitmachen.de and the recommendation of the Harbor Delegation. Vote against the administration’s recommendation and in favor of a Schiffbrücke without through traffic.

Build the city for people, not for engines!

Since January 1, 2026, a regulation has been in force in the Federal Republic that virtually no one was aware of until early April. With the Military Service Modernization Act, the Bundestag removed Section 3 (2) of the Conscription Act from its previous limitation to states of tension and defense and activated it permanently. The consequence: All male German citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 formally require permission from the relevant Bundeswehr career center if they wish to leave the Federal Republic for more than three months. It was only a report by the Frankfurter Rundschau on April 3, 2026, that made this regulation public—three months after it had come into force. It had not previously been addressed in the explanatory memorandum to the law nor during the hearing of the Defense Committee.

As the AStA executive board of Europa-Universität Flensburg, we firmly reject this regulation. We do so from a clear political position: we view conscription—whether as direct enlistment or as a gradual reactivation through registration, reporting, and authorization requirements—critically in principle and reject it. Security policy must be debated openly, publicly, and controversially in a democracy. That is precisely what did not happen here: not in parliament, not in the explanatory memorandum, not in the hearing, and not vis-à-vis the public. A regulation that interferes with the fundamental rights of millions of people belongs at the center of democratic debate—not hidden in an inconspicuous reference clause of a modernization law.

An interference with fundamental rights—even if “not intended”

Defense Minister Pistorius has stated that all men in the specified age group may “of course travel” and “currently” do not require permission (Legal Tribune Online / Handelsblatt, April 7/8, 2026). An administrative directive is intended to ensure this. However, this is legally insufficient. An administrative directive binds the administration internally but does not override a law. The wording of the law remains unchanged: any man between 17 and 45 who goes abroad for more than three months without permission is formally acting unlawfully. The fact that the administration is currently not enforcing this is a political promise—not a legal entitlement. This is precisely where the scandal lies: since January, millions of men have been living in a legal gray area in which they cannot rely on anything except the goodwill of an authority.

The freedom to leave the country is part of the general freedom of action under Article 2(1) of the Basic Law, while freedom of movement is enshrined in Article 11. A blanket, preventive requirement for authorization affecting millions of people in peacetime—without an individual risk assessment, under a system of voluntary military service, and without a functioning application procedure—is hardly compatible with the principle of proportionality. It also conflicts with European freedom of movement under Articles 21 and 45 TFEU. No other EU member state has a comparable instrument in peacetime.

Salami tactics: how liberal rights disappear piece by piece

Taken in isolation, the activation of a single paragraph may appear technical. In context, however, a different picture emerges. The Military Service Modernization Act reactivates military registration, obliges 18-year-old men to provide information, creates the framework for a future needs-based conscription—and activates precisely that requirement for exit authorization which previously applied only in a state of defense. We reject each of these measures individually. They are not harmless administrative acts but building blocks of a militarization policy that we do not support politically. Even more so, this applies to their combined effect: together, these steps constitute the full infrastructure to transition from voluntary military service to conscription at any time. This is the logic of salami tactics—measures presented individually as technical details result, in their accumulation, in a substantial shift in the relationship between citizen and state.

And one should not deceive oneself: anyone who creates an instrument that provokes such public resistance does not do so merely to leave it unused. A federal government that pays the political price for such a regulation intends to keep the option of using it open. Otherwise, it would have removed it from the law once criticism arose—not merely softened it cosmetically through an administrative directive. The fact that the parliamentary debate and the explanatory memorandum did not even mention this point makes the matter not better but worse: either parliament did not understand what it was deciding—or it deliberately chose not to say so openly.

Concrete consequences for students: study abroad under reservation

At EUF as a European university, study abroad semesters, Erasmus stays, and research visits are available to many students and are regularly undertaken. The situation is the same nationwide: around 40,000 students participate in Erasmus+ each year; a significant portion are male students whose stays regularly exceed the three-month threshold.

As long as Section 3 (2) of the Conscription Act remains in its activated form, a semester abroad is planned under the condition of a military authority’s authorization requirement that can be “activated” at any time. Pistorius himself has acknowledged this: “If the security situation were to deteriorate and compulsory military service had to be introduced, we would have a different starting point.” (Legal Tribune Online, April 8, 2026). This is precisely the uncertainty that male students must now factor in. This uncertainty affects only part of the student body—namely men—and thus creates structural unequal treatment that runs counter to the stated goals of European higher education policy.

What we demand

We call for legal clarification, not an administrative directive. Section 3 (2) of the Conscription Act must be suspended or repealed by law. Anything else leaves male students and all other affected young men in a state of uncertainty incompatible with the standards of a liberal constitutional state.

We call for a public review in the Bundestag. A parliament that adopts such a far-reaching regulation without mentioning it in the explanatory memorandum owes the public an explanation—and a review of which other provisions of the legislative package may not have been fully considered.

We call on the leadership of EUF to take a clear position. If international student mobility can be made subject to approval by military authorities, this is incompatible with the self-image of a European university.

And we reaffirm our fundamental position: conscription—in whatever form—is incompatible with our vision of an open, free, and peaceful society. We will continue to oppose its gradual reintroduction politically.

The AStA Executive Board
Europa-Universität Flensburg

As students, we live, learn, and work in this city. For us, Flensburg is not just a place to study, but the center of our lives. Yet when we look at the heart of this city – the Schiffbrücke – we see not a vibrant hub, but above all one thing: sheet metal, asphalt, and wasted potential. We call on city policymakers to show courage and finally make the Schiffbrücke (more) car-free.

1. “Space for People” – Space for all of us, not for cars

In a modern university city, public space is one of the most valuable resources. Especially for young people and students, access to non-commercial spaces is essential. The current use of the waterfront as a transit route and parking area is an urban planning failure. We need the Schiffbrücke as a social campus by the water: a place for culture, exchange, and political participation. A car-free zone would create space for pop-up events, student cultural projects, and spontaneous encounters that currently have no room between parked cars.

2. Mobility transition means: Safe for children, safe for cyclists

We advocate for an inclusive city. “Child-friendly mobility” is not a niche issue for young parents, but the gold standard for safe infrastructure.

Many students rely on bicycles as their primary mode of transport. The current situation at the Schiffbrücke is confusing and car-focused.

A city that is safe for children allows even the youngest to move around without fear. If a child can cycle safely here, then so can we.

We want a genuine mobility transition in which walking and cycling (“active mobility”) are prioritized instead of pushed to the margins.

3. Quality of life instead of noise pollution

Noise is one of the greatest stress factors in urban environments. We want a city for living, not for driving through.

Reducing car traffic drastically lowers noise levels and immediately improves quality of stay.

The Schiffbrücke must become a place of deceleration. We want to sit by the water to study, discuss, or relax without having to compete with engine noise.

Climate protection starts right outside our front doors: fewer cars mean better air and a concrete step toward climate neutrality.

4. Keep promises: Take the mobility master plan and public will seriously

We call for consistency from policymakers. The administration has already created the necessary instruments:

The Mobility Master Plan clearly calls for strengthening sustainable modes of transport. Anyone still clinging to the status quo of the “car city” is acting against their own planning principles.

The urban development strategy “Flensburg 2030+” speaks clearly: the citizens of this city – and we count ourselves among them – want people-centered mobility and a real connection to the waterfront.

It is time not only to print the will of the people in glossy brochures, but to implement it in concrete – or better yet, in unsealed, reclaimed spaces.

Our conclusion

We students see ourselves as part of the urban community and as a voice for the future. A car-free Schiffbrücke is a symbol of a modern, sustainable Flensburg. We no longer want to wait.
Build the city for people, not for engines!

Like our colleagues from the other AStAs in Schleswig-Holstein (cf. the press release of the AStA of CAU and the resulting media coverage¹), we are also affected by a rising number of exemption applications. Applications could be submitted until November 28. After completing the review process, we can state that 83 applications were approved this semester (winter semester 2025/26). In the summer semester 2025 there were 85 approvals, and in the previous winter semester 2024/25 there were 67.

These figures lead us to two conclusions:

1. Studying is becoming unaffordable for many students, as exemptions provide them with necessary financial relief.
2. The increasing number of applications shows that the financial situation of students is becoming increasingly precarious.

Following several discussions with the Studentenwerk and the Student Services of Europa-Universität Flensburg, it became apparent that students at Europa-Universität Flensburg are expected to pay the administrative fee as early as next semester, even though the corresponding law has not yet been published. The previous status had been that the administrative fee would be introduced in the next autumn semester.

This sudden and short-notice change has serious consequences for students: the semester contribution is no longer around €320, but €380, leaving many students with only two weeks to save or set aside the additional €60. This lack of transparency is also unfair to students at EUF who decided not to apply for an exemption. The issue of financing one’s studies is often associated with shame, and submitting an exemption application requires courage. We are no longer able to support students who would decide to apply for an exemption at a semester contribution of €390, as the application period has already closed.

Ultimately, all that remains is a look toward the future. We expect a further increase in applications and, consequently, a greater need for funds, which are financed through the solidarity contribution included in the semester fee. As this fund was insufficient this year and will likely be insufficient again next year—even despite a probable increase in contributions—we as the AStA of Europa-Universität Flensburg are faced with the following dilemma: either draw on our reserves and forego cultural events, or reject applications due to a lack of funds. This is a problem created by the Ministry of Education, and one that we are unable to resolve on our own.

We are drawing attention to this and other issues with our travelling exhibition “University of Flensburg – Finally Funded Comprehensively.” From December 18 to 20, the exhibition will be shown in a retail space in the Galerie. A closing event (finissage) will take place on January 22 at the Phänomenta, which will also be attended by the Minister of Education, Dr. Dorit Stenke.

¹ https://www.shz.de/deutschland-welt/schleswig-holstein/artikel/studenten-in-sh-in-geldnot-asta-rekord-bei-haertefaellen-49522759

As part of the campaign “University of Flensburg – Finally Funded Comprehensively,” the AStA of Europa-Universität Flensburg (EUF) is organizing a large-scale travelling exhibition that draws attention to the central role students play in the city of Flensburg and to the consequences of the current underfunding of Europa-Universität Flensburg.

Throughout the entire month of December, artistic works will be presented in the city center, in the shopping mall “Galerie,” and on campus. A finissage as well as an accompanying petition will complement the exhibition and place the university’s financial challenges at the center of public attention.

The exhibition poses striking questions: What would Flensburg be without its students? How do they shape life in the city? And what does it mean when rising costs and budget cuts fundamentally change everyday academic life? The exhibited works address, among other issues, the impact of administrative fees, the loss of teaching opportunities and supervision for theses, as well as biographical disruptions caused by underfunding. The aim is to engage in dialogue with the public and foster discussion.

In addition to student voices, graduates and members of the academic mid-level staff are also represented. Their perspectives underline how essential stable educational structures are for studying, research, and future careers.

The posters will be displayed in the city center during calendar week 50 and on campus from calendar week 51 onwards. The exhibition at the Galerie will open on December 4 in the premises next to Telekom (entrance Südermarkt) and will be open from Thursday to Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The exhibition sends a clear artistic and political message: universities must not be neglected. Because education costs money – but a lack of education costs far more.

The AStA of Europa-Universität Flensburg (EUF) invites everyone to enjoy mulled punch at Nordermarkt. On December 5, from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., students will be serving mulled punch at Nordermarkt. In the evening, the President of Europa-Universität Flensburg, Prof. Dr. Hipp, will also be present.

With warm punch and music, students invite the public to join them in conversation. They aim to draw attention to the various actions taking place across the city and to engage in dialogue about the administrative fee and the financial situation of universities in Schleswig-Holstein.

Students are calling for reliable and sufficient funding from the state of Schleswig-Holstein that ensures high-quality teaching, research, and administration, and strengthens the university in fulfilling its social responsibility.

Europa-Universität Flensburg is an important part of the city of Flensburg. The students want to make this visible and warmly invite everyone to attend.