A. Carmon The Impact of the Nazi Racial Decrees on the University of Heidelberg Source: A. Carmon, Yad Vashem Studies XI (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 131-163. Part A, B, C ONE OF THE FIRST objectives realised by the Nazis during the years 1933-1935 was the "cleansing" (Saeuberung) of the German universities of their Jewish students and lecturers. This purge was connected with the attempt to "co-ordinate" (Gleichschaltung) German academic life with the tenets of National Socialism. Yet, while "co-ordination" and "cleansing" seem to us in retrospect to be interrelated processes, the Nazis considered them as two separate issues. The former was a long-range objective, which was never fully realised, while the ousting of Jewish academics was in fact one aspect of the Nazi "solution of the Jewish question." The following is an attempt to describe the "cleansing" process and to analyse its implications 1 . Although the research presented here is a case study of a single university - Heidelberg* - it also constitutes all attempt to delineate the general characteristics of Nazi racial objectives as implemented in German institutions of higher learning. The period of political and socio-economic crisis, which marked the decline of the Weimar Republic considerably affected the academic and social climate in several universities. The Nazis exploited the yearning for "national revival" (Nationalerhebung) to stir up social and political unrest, focusing primarily on the "Jewish Question." At Heidelberg the event which exemplified this development was the Gumbel Affair (Fall Gumbel), which rocked the University for two years and created a tense, anti-Semitic atmosphere, which was aggravated by similar "cases" in other universities, such as those of Hans Nawiski, Theodor Lessing, Ernst Cohen and several others. Emil Gumbel, who was of Jewish origin, was a Socialist and pacifist who openly expressed his convictions. In the summer of 1930, as a result of his scholarly achievements in the field of statistics, he was promoted by the Baden Minister of Education to the position of "extraordinary associate professor." The radical nationalists among the students at Heidelberg, several nationalist professors, as well as the nationalistic parties and press vehemently opposed his appointment, claiming that it was unconstitutional. The Nazi and the nationalistic factions in the Student Union, as well as the right-wing political parties in Baden, attempted to turn this controversy into a political and ideological crisis, thus challenging a traditionally sacred principle of German academia - the complete separation of the State from academic affairs. These (developments proved the vulnerability of German scholars to the violence generated by the adherents of an anti-intellectual ideology. Finally, not only Gumbel's appointment but also his career at Heidelberg was terminated. On November 7, 1930, at one of the first rallies against Gumbel, Dr. Vogel, a member of the Heidelberg Nazi Party, described Gumbel as a traitor to the German people who, being a Jew, infected the "historical Spirit" of the university. The next protest rally was intended to lay the groundwork for the struggle of the nationalist Student Union in order to purify the university.' 2 "The Affair" had political implications during the presidential election campaign of 1932, when 32 members of the university's teaching staff issued a call, in the pages of the local liberal newspaper, Das Heidelberger Tageblatt, to vote for Hindenburg. The Nazi newspaper, Die Volksgemeinschaft, in a malevolent attack, named Hindenburg's acclaimers as "Gumbel's supporters" and identified them as "Rabbi Pinkus's men." 3 These examples are indicative of the virulent verbal attacks levelled against Jews. Jewish students were also subjected to physical violence at the height of the street demonstrations 4 . These manifestations of anti-Jewish animosity at Heidelburg cannot be separated from the general pressure exerted by the Nazis throughout the Reich prior to their rise to power. Moreover, Fall Gumbel was not an isolated case. For its provocateurs it was a means of achieving political and ideological ends. As far as its victims, professors and students alike, are concerned, it was a clearly sounded warning, which exposed the vulnerability of the university. Only a few very distinguished professors, including Karl Barth, Albert Einstein, Toenis, Emil Lederer, and Gustav Radbruch - the last two were from Heidelberg - protested against the introduction of political considerations into the controversy and its racist overtones. Official steps against Jewish scholars were first taken a few weeks after the March 1933 election. Events proceeded in accordance with the Nazis' plans for implementing "the cleansing process." The following study analyses the effects of the "cleansing" process within the context of the changes that occurred at the University of Heidelberg between 1933 and 1935. Both professors and students were affected by the application of National Socialist racial theories, but the dismissal of professors differed from the elimination of students insofar as it had a different impact on the university. Therefore the two phenomena will be discussed separately. "Cleansing" the Faculty Besides the personal tragedies of several scholars who were forced to leave their academic positions, and ultimately their homeland, the purge of professors, almost a quarter of the entire faculty, was a tremendous loss to the university and its level of scholarship. The dismissal of the professors was based on an official law; enacted by the State's highest authorities and signed by both Adolf Hitler and Wilhelm Frick. It established racial and political criteria for academic positions at universities. Consequently, the old ideas of universitas litterarum and civitas academica were violated even before new institutional patterns were formulated. The obvious outcome was a severe restriction of the individual autonomy, which had been fostered in order to implement the ideal of freedom in research and instruction. Even for those members of the faculty who were free from either racial or political prejudice, the respected traditional German concept of "W issenschaft als Beruf" (education as vocation) had almost totally lost its meaning. The legal basis for the purging of the faculties of Jews as well as of "enemies of the Reich" was provided by "The Law for the Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service" (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums), enacted on April 7, 1933 5 . The following pretexts for dismissals were cited in the law: 1. Inadequate training (second paragraph 11), 2. Political unreliability, especially membership in the Communist Party (paragraphs 2a and 4), 3. "Non-Aryan" descent, unless the official was (a) in office before August 1, 1914, or (b) had fought in World War I, or (c) had lost a father or son in that war. A series of supplements was appended to the law of April 7, 1933, the last of which was issued on January 26, 1937. According to the "First Implementation Decree," dated April 11, 1933, a "non-Aryan" official 6 was defined as anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent "especially if he adhered to the Jewish religion." The Supplement to the Civil Service law of January 21, 1935 justified the removal and transfer of university teachers in order to effect a "fundamental reconstruction of the universities," the particular method used being the abolition of a professorship or a professorial chair (officially referred to by the euphemism wegen Wegfall des Lehrstuhls) 7 . The most comprehensive definition of the term "Jew" was set forth in the infamous Nuremberg Laws of September 15, 1935. University professors who had served in the German Army in World War I were not exempted from the anti-Jewish legislation. Thus, all those who had retained their chairs according to the Civil Service Law of April 7, 1933 were purged after the Nazi Party convention in September 1935. Moreover, marriage to a Jew was sufcause to withhold teaching rights (venia legendi) from a candidate 8 but not suffito deprive those already in office of their positions 9 . The dismissal of professors at Heidelberg was not a single occurrence. There were dismissals over the course of four years, from the initial Civil Service Law until the last supplementary decree of January 1937. Tracing the course of these dismissals was one of the most difficult tasks of this research 10 . From the data collected, however, a tentative assessment can be made. There are two secondary sources, which provide statistics on the faculty members who were dismissed from Heidelberg. According to the first, 60 professors or 24.3 % out of the 247 teaching staff who taught at Ruperto-Carola in the winter semester of 1932/33 were forced to leave their positions by the end of 1936 11 . According to the second source, 47 professors out of a teaching staff of 189, excluding the Faculty of Theology, had been dismissed by the beginning of 1936 12 . The following table, which lists the number of dismissals according to faculties, is from the latter source: No. in Faculty No. Dismissed Percentage of those Dismissed Law 20 6 30 Medicine 71 20 28 Philosophy 52 16 30 Natural Sciences 46 5 11 Total 189 47 24.8 The names of 36 of those who were dismissed between 1933 and 1937 are known. Of these we know the dates of dismissal for 30. Those dismissed can be classified into four categories: 1) those dismissed after the Law of April 7, 1933, and before September 1933, the period during which all the dismissals were to leave been implemented; 2) those dismissed after September 1933 and prior to the Nuremberg Citizenship Laws; 3) those exempted from the first Law but dismissed according to the stipulations of the Nuremberg Laws; 4) those whose date of dismissal is not known. From the Faculty of Law: the non-Jewish Socialist, Professor Gustav Radbruch, was dismissed in April 1933; and the non-Jewish Democrat, Professor Gerhard Auschuetz, one of the architects of the Weimar constitution, who was 65 years old on October 1, 1932, was forced to retire in the same month. From the Faculty of Medicine: Professors Siegfried Bethmann (April 28, 1933) and Willy Mayer Gross were dismissed due to their "Non-Aryan" descent. From the Faculty of Philosophy: Professor Leonard Olschki (April 28, 1933), Professor Herbert Sultan '(April 20, 1933), Professors Arthur Salz, Max F. von Waldberg (April 12, 1933) 13 , and Ernst Wahle (April 1933) were forcibly retired. Professor Alfred Weber, a non-Jew, who was 65 years old on August 20, 1933, was forced to retire on April 27, 1933, and Professor Hans von Eckerdt, a non-Jew, was also dismissed in April 1933. From The Faculty of Natural Sciences: the Nobel Prize winner, Professor Otto Meyerhof (April 1933), Professor Arthur Rosenthal (April 1933), Professor Wilhelm Salomon Calvi (April 21, 1933) 14 , and Professor Gerta von Ubisch (April 28, 1933) were all forced to leave. Two Jewish professors are known to this writer to have been dismissed after September 1933 and before the Nuremberg Laws: Professor von Baeyr of the Faculty of Medicine (November 1933) and the classical historian Professor Eugen Taeubler, who was an active member of the Marianne Weber Kreis (forced to retire on November 9, 1933, and dismissed in December 1933).15 After the Nuremberg Laws were issued, Professor Max Gutzwiller was forced to retire in 1936 and was deprived of his pension rights in October 1937; Walter Jellinek and Ernst Levy (January 15, 1936) were dismissed from their chairs in the Faculty of Law. The following professors were dismissed from the Faculty of Philosophy: Professor Herman Ranke (June 1, 1937), Professor Otto Regenbogen (September 19, 1935), Professor Plans Sachs (beginning of 1936), and the non-Jewish philosopher, Professor Karl Jaspers (June 19, 1937) 16 . The following are the faculty members whose dates of dismissal are not known: Professor Heinrich Kronstein, Professor Helmut Hetzfeld, Professor Wafter Level, Professor Leopold Perels, Professor Hugo Merton, and Professor Richard Werner. Jewish professors from all over the country left Germany following their dismissal. Several were absorbed by academic institutions in other countries 17 , while others, hoping for better times, remained in Germany. Many of the latter were ultimately exterminated in concentration camps 18 . The obvious outcome of the purge was that the university decreased in size. The data collected indicates that notwithstanding partial replacements the university lost some 23-25% of its teaching staff and ranked third among all German universities in the percentage of faculty dismissed. (The University of Berlin lost 32.4% of its teaching staff and the University of Frankfurt on Main 32.3%) 19 . Given the fact that no one was dismissed from the Faculty of Theology, it is obvious that the reduction of other faculties was even greater than the overall percentage. As indicated above, the faculties of Law, Medicine, and Philosophy suffered a loss of 28-30%, while the Faculty of Natural Sciences lost about 11 %. Another quantitative loss resulting from the violation of the " Wissenschaft als Beruf" concept was caused by "transfers" (Versetzungen). Professors, especially those not affiliated with Nazi organisations, were frequently forced by the Ministries of Culture of the Laender to move from one university to another. This method was a means of forcing them into early retirement; some of the professors were "transferred" for only one semester 20 . In 1930 the total number of teaching staff at Ruperto-Carola was 237, and by 1936 their number had been reduced to 194. Given the fact that about 60 faculty members had been dismissed, this means that there were at least 17 new teachers at Heidelberg, and the "transfers" increased their number even more. A comparison between the list of the instructors at Heidelberg in 1932-33 and in 1936 reveals that many professors who were neither "non-Aryans" nor suspected of "political unreliability" were no longer teaching at the university in the latter year. Eighty-one of the 194 teachers in 1936 were virtual newcomers 21 . Thus the fluctuation in the number of teachers in Heidelberg between 1933 and the end of 1936 was extremely high, and of course this phenomenon had a significant impact on the quality of scholarship there. Moreover, since new teachers were appointed according to political criteria, it is conceivable that advancement in academic rank was also dependent on political affiliation. Hence, at least a few among the 1936 Ordinarii at Heidelberg, who filled the vacant chairs of the dismissed professors, were appointed due to political considerations. Since their ascent to the position of Ordinrarius was not subject to the customary regulations regarding promotions, they were much younger and less experienced. Dr. Hans Himmel, for example, a Privatdozent at the age of 33 in 1930, replaced his professor, Wilhelm Salomon Calvi, who was dismissed from the Faculty of Natural Sciences. A member of the university's Fuehrer-stab 22 since September 1933, Himmel was a full-fledged professor by 1936. The combination of academic and political criteria in the nomination of professors replaced the traditionally unilateral procedure, which was based on purely professional considerations. Indeed, the rapid advancement of young scholars to the higher ranks of professorship introduced opportunism to the university. The young Dozenten had been born around the turn of the century, and most had not fought in World War 1. They attended universities during the first years of the Weimar Republic and it is likely that their political convictions were forged in the atmosphere of hostility toward the Republic displayed by the German student unions (Studentenschaften) during this period. Thus, after 1933, they were inclined to carry out their academic functions in the spirit of National Socialism. The use of political criteria was not restricted to the process of filling vacant positions. Even after four years of purging there were still several "enemies of the Reich" at the university, hence additional steps were needed: the establishment of the "leadership principle', (Fuehrerprinzip) as the guideline for the university's administrative and constitutional structure; the drafting of new curricula, influenced by the Nazi ideology, both for academic disciplines and for students' extra-curricular activities; and the further implementation of the "cleansing" process. References: 1. For a description of the expulsion of Jewish academics from the Berlin-Charlottenburg T.H. see Hans Ebert, 'The Expulsion of the Jews from the Berlin-Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule,' Leo Baeck Institute Year Book , Vol. XIX, 1974, pp. 155¯171. *The University of Heidelberg, established in 1386 by the Elector Palatine of the Rhine, Ruprecht I, for several centuries played a significant role in the spiritual life of Central Europe. In May 1803, during the Napoleonic wars, Karl Friedrich, Markgraf of Baden, issued an edict for the re-organisation of the university. This edict effected a departure from the medieval tradition of studium generale , according to which education had been regarded primarily as a tool of the state. More important, it gave impetus to the modern concept of freedom in research and instruction, and thus to modern scholarship. The 1803 act of renewal was seen by as an event equal in importance to the foundation of the university in 1386. The event was perpetuated by naming the university after its two founders (the Ruprecht-Karl or Ruperto-Carola Universitaet). During the 19th century, as Wissenschaft and Bildung developed as the main concepts of German academic life, the gradual emancipation of German Jewry brought some Jews into the universities. (Discussion of the contribution of German Jewish academics to science in general and to German Wissenschaft in particular exceeds the bounds of this study.) 2. Universitaetsarchiv Heidelberg (hereafter ¯ UAHD), III, 55b, No. 332. Rab3. bi Pinkus was head of the Jewish community in Baden ( Bezirksrabbiner ). 4. UAHD, VIII, 1, records of the university's disciplinary court, No. 290. 5. Reichsgesetzblatt (hereafter ¯ RGBl) I, 1933, p. 175. 6. It should be noted that the definition was in no way based on racial criteria. The sole criterion for categorisation into the 'Aryan' and 'non-Aryan' was the Jewish faith of the individual's ancestors, regardless of his own religion. See Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of European Jewry , Chicago, 1967, pp. 45¯51. 7. RGBl I, 1933, pp. 1333¯34. 8. 'Reichs-Habilitationsordnung,' December 13, 1934, Amtsblatt des Reichsministeriums fuer Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung (hereafter ¯ ABl), I, 12¯14, ABl IXXV, 277, No. 340. 9. Those dismissed according to the Civil Service Act of April 7, 1933, also lost some of the benefits ordinarily guaranteed by the State. They were not guaranteed pensions unless they had been in office at least ten years. Those 'relieved of their official duties' by the law of January 21, 1935, were to receive their lawful salary but not tuition fees. Professors lost what was known as the Kolleggeld , which normally accrued to a professor according to his number of 'listeners,' in some cases 'guaranteed' to a professor by the State as an equivalent for the tuition of a fixed number of students, whether he had them or not, and which normally amounted to about a quarter of his total pay. As for the salary itself, it was cut so that the 'retired professor' ( beurlaubt ) received as a rule about half his former income. Eduard Y. Hartshorne, The German Universities and National-Socialism , Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1937, p. 176. 10.The personal files of the Heidelberg professors were not made available to this writer. The data collected was gathered through interviews, foreign reports, and assessments made by investigations of other documents. 11.Hartshorne, op. cit. , p. 94, Table II ¯ 'Proportional Faculty Losses of the Various Universities (exclusive of assistants).' 12. Heidelberg and the Universities of America , New York, 1936. 13.Max von Waldberg, Professor of Modern Literature, was dismissed on July 7, 1933. He, as well as Prof. Friedrich Gundolf (also born a Jew), were the teachers of Dr. Joseph Goebbels. 14.Wilhelm Salomon Calvi, Professor of Geology, born to Jewish parents, converted to Catholicism on November 4, 1892, as an 11-year old boy. 15.In 1924 Marianne Weber, Prof. Max Weber's widow, established a private circle for intellectual activities which met weekly in her house in Heidelberg. The participants in this circle were mainly the liberal professors of the university. In a summary of this circle's activities (Akademische Gesellschaft 1924¯1944; Gustav Radbruch zum 70. Geburtstag, November 21, 1948), Marianne Weber described the meetings held after Hitler's seizure of power: Those attending the circle's meetings had to do so very carefully, particularly those people who ¯ without the protection of the Party decorations ¯ were vulnerable as suspected liberals and doubly so those who maintained connections with their Jewish friends. The debates in the circle's sessions over actual questions of the hour had to be concealed... One had to remain inconspicuous; despite all efforts the circle was constantly watched... [All those members who, after the take over] had reasons to demonstrate their loyalty to the new State, by joining the S.A. or other Nazi affiliates, had to resign [from the circle]... The circle consisted now essentially of old familiar friends... unified in their attitude to the new State and who had to trust each other.' (Radbruch, Nachlass, Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg). 16.The information about Karl Jaspers seems somewhat confusing. The following assessments represent the various opinions gathered by this writer: Dr. Weissert of the Universitaetsarchiv of Heidelberg claims that his dismissal was on political grounds. Hannah Arendt said in an interview that Jaspers tried to maintain a distance from the Nazis. In 1935, according to Hannah Arendt, he taught Spinoza at the university. In an interview with Prof. Dolf Sternberger, who was once a student of Jaspers, as was Hannah Arendt, he asserted that Jaspers had to leave Heidelberg because his wife was Jewish. Finally, Prof. Daniel Penham of Columbia University, in 1945¯1946 the chief officer in American counterintelligence, told this writer that Jaspers received permission from the Nazi authorities to leave Germany to attend an academic convention in Holland in 1937, on the condition that he gather some valuable information. Jaspers accepted the condition. 17.For a detailed account of the fate of German Jewish academics, see Hartshorne, op. cit. 18.The following examples illustrate the fate of Jewish scholars from Heidelberg who found refuge abroad: Emil Lederer, who had courageously struggled on behalf of his colleague E. Gumbel throughout the entire Gumbel Affair, emigrated to the U.S. a short time after he had joined the teaching staff at the University of Berlin. In the U.S. he was one of the founders of the New School for Social Research in New York. Emil Gumbel emigrated to the U.S. and settled in New York after teaching for a few years in France, and after being deprived of his German citizenship by the Nazi authorities. On November 17, 1933, his colleague, the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at that time, Professor Herman Guentert, who later became a registered member of the Nazi Party, in a letter to the Rector, commended Taeubler's scientific activities as well as his achievements in seminars, and urged him to let Taeubler enjoy all his honorary pension rights. Taeubler emigrated to the U.S. and later taught in Cincinnati. Among others who also emigrated to the U.S. were: Leonard Olschki, Professor of Roman Philology who later taught at Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Salz, Professor of Economics, who later taught at Ohio State University; Herman Ranke, Professor of Egyptology, who joined the University of Pennsylvania; and Heinrich Kronstein, professor in the Faculty of Law at Heidelberg, who joined the staff of the Library of Congress. They all were aided by the Emergency Committee for the Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars. Herbert Sultan, Professor of National Economics, emigrated to England. 19.Hartshorne, op. cit. , p. 94. 20. Ibid. , p. 101 f. 21.Emil J. Gumbel, Die Gleichschaltung der deutschen Hochschulen , Strasbourg, 1938, pp. 9¯10. (This material was placed at my disposal by the Leo Baeck Institute, New York.) 22.While the Fuehrerprinzip constituted the new institutional framework for the university, the Fuehrerstab emerged as the body in which university matters were to be decided. During the period under investigation, it was comprised of the Fuehrer , Prof. Wilhelm Groh; the local Studentenfuehrer , Gustav Adolf Scheel, who later became the Reichsstudentenfuehrer , and was Hitler's nominee for Minister of Education in 1945; the Kanzler , Prof. Johannes Stein; and his deputy Prof. Hans Himmel. Part B The continued employment of professors who had been exempted by the Law of April 7, 1933 due to their service in the army during World War 1, and who had therefore been allowed to remain temporarily at the university, served as the impetus for further actions which resulted in a further lowering of the university's standards. In a narrow sense, their presence necessitated the participation of university committees in the "cleansing process." In a wider sense, the actions against them led to the deterioration of academic interrelationships. On September 3, 1934, the Reich Ministry of Education issued a decree to exclude "non-Aryan" professors from the university's examination committee 23 . On September 19, 1934 Professor Wilhelm Groh, the Fuehrer (Rector) of the university, complied with the decree by distributing the following note to the deans of the faculties: The information [regarding the decree] is to be conveyed confidentially to the deans, urging them to report who are the non-Aryan members to be eliminated from the examination committees and who can replace them [on these committees].' 24 During the following week, Professor Groh received the requested information and proposals for replacements from three faculties: In the Law Faculty the two remaining Jewish professors, Ernst Levy and Walter Jellinek, were members of the faculty's examination committee 25 . The former was to be replaced by Professor Max Gutzwiller 26 and the latter by the Nazi, Dr. Reinhardt Hoehn 27 . The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine reported that Professor Bethmann, who was classified as a "non-Aryan," participated in the faculty's examination committee. Since in the Dean's view no one was capable of replacing him at that time, he asked for permission to allow Bethmann to retain his chair "in the meantime." 28 An interesting, though odd, reaction was displayed by Professor Carl Brinkmann, the economist who was Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at that time 29 . Brinkmann categorised the philosopher and pedagogue, Professor Ernst Hoffmann, who was neither Jewish nor Communist 30 , and the Roman philologist Professor Hetzfeld, as "non-Aryans." Yet Brinkmann also provided the Rector with strong arguments against the dismissal of both from the examination committees. Hetzfeld, wrote Brinkmann, was urgently needed as a State examiner by the Union of Roman Philologists 31 . Moreover, there seems to have been no replacement for him on the examination committee for Ph.D.s. With regard to Hoffmann, there is no question as to whether he could be denied his promotion rights. According to the rules of the Union of Philosophy one man cannot be replaced by another arbitrarily.' Brinkmann washed his hands of the final decision, asking Professor Groh to find out whether or not a way could be found to circumvent the decree of the Ministry of Education. Brinkmann's letter sharply exposed the tension between professional academic needs and the arbitrary decrees of the Nazis. At the same time his reply indicates that in September 1934 it was still possible to challenge some of the regime's authority in academic matters. Finally, when the answers of the three deans are compared, it is quite clear that the decision either to invoke academic requirements or to give in to the Nazis ultimately depended solely on the personality of the dean. One should not exclude the anti-Semitic and terror-filled atmosphere as a factor, which influenced professional decisions. Nonetheless, Brinkmann's answer indicates that there was a certain area in which professional responsibility could still be exercised. On October 31, 1934, another decree was issued by the Ministry of Education calling for the dismissal of the remaining "non-Aryans" from promotion committees. The earlier decree of September 3 had been worded in general terms and was applied to students both before and after their First State's examinations. The latter stipulated that "non-Aryan" professors would not be able to participate in examination committees for Ph.D. candidates. It was meant to prohibit them from Serving as readers of dissertations and likewise as supervisors 32 . On November 24, 1934, all the deans of Heidelberg's five faculties informed the Rector, Professor Wilhelm Groh, that measures to implement the second decree were under consideration 33 . On November 30, the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Professor Herman Guentert 34 , informed the Rector that his "non-Aryan" colleague, Professor Helmut Hetzfeld, had participated as a member in two examination committees on November 8 and 15. The decree of the Ministry of Education, he explained, was conveyed to him on November 16. The decree prohibiting professors from supervising students studying toward higher degrees engendered certain problems. The correspondence between the deans, the Rector and the Baden Ministry of Culture reveals an attempt by the university to thwart the last decree, and ultimately a significant retreat by the Ministry. On December 6, 1934, the Dean of the Law Faculty wrote to the Ministry of Culture, through the Rector of the University, that he had learned that the University of Freiburg had postponed the implementation of the October 31 decree until January 1, 1935. The Dean, Professor Karl Aengisch, wondered if this delay might be applicable also to the University of Heidelberg 35 . Eagerness to postpone the implementation of the decree possibly stemmed from a desire to protect students who were in the process of writing their dissertations under controversial professors. In his answer of January 12, 1935, the Minister of Culture seems to have made a temporary concession, stating that until a final decision was reached by the Reich Ministry of Education, he was willing to allow "non-Aryan" professors to participate in the examination committees of their doctoral candidates. This concession should also apply, for the time being, to those "non-Aryans" participating in examination committees for first degree students, who had to take their examinations at the end of the 1934-35 winter semester. This concession, the Baden Ministry of Culture reminded the university, would not affect the final decision 36 . As small as it was, this concession again illustrates the leeway, which the deans were able to exercise. They could have temporarily protected the welfare of advanced students and consequently that of their Jewish colleagues, or they could have adhered to the racial objectives of the decree. An example in which the latter course bias is preferred, is provided by the Faculty of Medicine. On the staff of this faculty was Professor Dr. Johannes Stein, a member of the Nazi Party, who was the leader of the 'university's S.A. unit and, as the Kanzler of the University, a member of its Fuehrerstab. He served as a watchdog for Nazi interests at the university, rejecting any exemptions from the Nazi decrees. Thus, in a letter to the Rector 37 , the Dean of the Faculty, Professor C. Schneider, told of his Jewish colleague's fate. Professor Siegfried Bethmann was to continue his work with students who had been under his supervision before the decree of October 31, 1934. However, he was not to serve as a Member or the examination boards, which would test these students. The final decision as to who would substitute for him has to be made by the Rector. Given the role played by Professor Stein in Professor Schneider's decision (reached, as the latter pointed out, by Stein and himself), it is quite clear that the Rector's decision was also influenced by the Kanzler. On February 6, 1935 the Baden Ministry of Culture conveyed to the Rector of Heidelberg University the directives of the Reich Ministry of Edand instructions for the implementation of the decrees of September 3 and October 31, 1934 38 . The introduction of this document reveals that in universities all over the Reich speculation was rife as to the deadline by which these decrees were to become effective. It also listed the following directives: as far as participation of "non-Aryans" in doctoral committees was concerned, every effort was to be made to comply with the decrees. However, the Dean had the ultimate decision in specific cases in which students might be harmed by the stipulations regarding the examination of doctoral candidates. Indeed, the document reads: The Dean should make every effort to avoid any upheavals. While awaiting further supplements [to the decrees], avoid any difficult situations and keep in mind that the welfare of the university is the major concern.' At first sight, the document of February 6, 1935 might give the impression that the Nazi educational agencies had changed the objectives of the September 3 and October 31 racial decrees, and that "the welfare of the university" had become a "major concern" and had gained priority over the implementation of these objectives. However, this was not the case. The first clause of the February 6 document clearly stated the regime's intentions, and the Nazis counted on the university faculties, such as the Medical Faculty at Heidelberg, to comply fully with their aims. Nonetheless, in retrospect, the importance of this document lies in its very ambiguity, in the contradictions inherent in its text. One cannot reconcile the difference between the need to retain "non-Aryan" professors on doctoral examination committees "for the sake of the university's welfare" and the implications of the directive to "cleanse" the same institution. An example of the feasibility of choosing to protect "the university's welfare" is provided by the newly-founded Faculty of Social Sciences. As late as November 1935, and after the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws, the Rector sent a reminder regarding the directives of February 6, 1935 to the Dean of this Faculty. Although he reiterated the necessity to exclude "non-Aryans" from doctoral examination committees, Wilhelm Groh pointed out that exceptions in this case are possible only if the elimination of non-Aryans causes severe hardships.' 39 Despite the lack of more source material, which might indicate why this letter was sent, it is possible to assume that in November 1935 at least one Jewish professor still served as a supervisor for a doctoral candidate. Other documents indicate the racist mood, which prevailed at Ruperto-Carola during 1935. On April 30, 1935 the Dean of the Medical School informed the Rector that no one in his faculty knew of any alleged "Jewish lecturers" listed in either the Faculty's curriculum or in that of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute (for physics) 40 . The Dean claimed that it was probably a false report as, it is impossible that Jewish medical doctors would be permitted to step inside the door of the lecture hall. Presumably the lecture would have been cancelled.' On November 15, 1935 the Rector of the University of Heidelberg received a letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Jena, who had recently graduated from the Heidelberg Medical School. Professor Dr. Gerhard Buhtz, a member of the Nazi Party whose rise to this high position had been meteoric, sought Wilhelm Groh's advice: As you probably know, I have become the Dean of the Medical Faculty as of October 1. I acquired National Socialist principles at Heidelberg, which I seriously intend to implement here, for until now they have been very poorly executed by the Faculty.' Professor Buhtz had been informed that Heidelberg had also eliminated the participation of those closely related to Jews on examination committees. Could you be so kind as to inform me as to whether this was ordered by the university's authorities or by the Baden Ministry of Culture. If the latter is the case, would it be possible for you to send me confidentially the [relevant] decree.' 41 It is noteworthy that the above letter, which did not conceal its writer's intentions, was answered by Professor Groh quite formally. Nonetheless, the content of Groh's answer again clearly reveals the leeway left by the Nazi educational agencies for the exercise of independent decisions 42 : Regarding your question of November 13, 1935, I inform you that a Baden ministerial decree regarding the exclusion of lecturers closely related to Jews has not, as yet, been issued. I have notified the deans confidentially to order that none of these Dozenten are to be admitted to meetings, examinations, etc. Firm regulations in this matter, however, have not been formulated; in any event, you can adopt such a policy by yourself, without concessions.' The last sentence, coupled with Groh's confidential directive to the deans, reveals the attitude of the Heidelberg's Fuehrerstab. Thus the university was, in effect, able to interpret the racial decrees either leniently or severely; it chose the latter course. In retrospect, not only "non-Aryan" professors and "political enemies" suffered as a result of the decrees; the introduction of irrational criteria into academic life affected the faculty as a whole. After April 1933 every faculty member was required to fill in a questionnaire stating the religion of his parents as well as of his grandparents. Totally exposed to the vagaries of Nazi policy, he could never be certain of the duration of his appointment. Unless he was a registered member of the Nazi Party, he continually had to be wary of non-academic critics. He had to compete with glamorous paramilitaristic, extra-curricular appeals for the attention of his students and was forced to lecture before rows of brown shirts, flanked by zealous young Nazi Dozenten. In his free time he was called on to participate in official ceremonies and functions and to read official papers and periodicals. In short he lived in an atmosphere in which the concept of universitas litterarum no longer existed, and in which his Jewish and liberal-minded colleagues were being purged, while the new leaders of the university were engaged in further strengthening the Nazis' hold on that institution. "Cleansing" the Studentenschaft The process of "cleansing" the Heidelberg student body was initiated from within the student union itself and was expressed through various anti-Semitic actions against Heidelberg's 177 Jewish students 43 and their left-wing colleagues. The "cleansing" of the student body was the least complicated event among all those connected with the Gleichschaltung process at Ruperto-Carola. Discrimination against Jewish students was not a new phenomenon in Heidelberg. Long before 1933 anti-Semitism had played a major role in the programs of many student organisations. Jewish groups had existed for many decades at the University of Heidelberg, yet in many respects they were separated from the main: stream of student activities. In 1930 there were three Jewish student organisations at the university: Verbindung im K.C. "Bavaria," Die Iwria, and Die Zionistische Studentinnengruppe. The latter two were affiliated with the national Zionist organisation K.J.V. (KartelI Juedischer Verbindungen) . "Bavaria," however, was by all definitions a fraternity (Burschenschaft). It had a fraternity house, the K.C. members had their own uniforms, and in academic ceremonies the members of "Bavaria" carried the fraternity's symbols 44 . The Jewish fraternity was the main target of anti-Semitic activities at the university. Since the last decades of the 19th century, Jewish fraternities had tried to accommodate themselves to the prevailing youth culture in the German universities. As a group of men, who were both German and Jewish, Bavaria aspired to symbolise the fact that union was possible. This aspiration, however, was repeatedly challenged and frustrated both by the authorities of several universities and by their student bodies. At the University of Heidelberg the academic authorities decreed in 1901 the very existence of a Jewish fraternity is sufficient to endanger peace among the students.' As Early as the turn of the century, an official university decree, resulting from student pressure, indicated that social anti-Semitism had already become common in all academic circles 45 . The student body of 1930 considered the Jewish brotherhood an irksome foreign body, which impeded the drive toward an all-encompassing Aryan Volksgemeinschaft 46 . The Jewish students were forbidden to exercise the rights of "satisfaction or honour"; thus if a Jew sought a formal duel as the "honour price" for insults, he would be refused 47 . In December 1929 an attempt was made by the association of Heidelberg's student unions to force the dissolution of "Bavaria" in order to erase the "alien essence of the Jewish spirit." All affiliated student bodies were forced to participate in this action under the threat of boycott 48 . However, the attempt failed as a result of disciplinary action taken by the university. Disciplinary measures were taken again in the summer of 1930 following another attempt to eliminate the Jewish fraternity. "Bavaria" was not dissolved until April 29, 1933, when its house was confiscated by the S.A. unit (28/100) of the university 49 . In the spring of 1933, groups of nationalist students, led by the Nazi Students' League (NSDStB), vainly sought authoritative directives from their superiors in their drive to completely revolutionise the university. Although these directives were never issued, the Nazi leaders of the student body took severe measures against "the enemies of the Third Reich" on campus. Thus, in the initial stages of the Gleichschaltung, discriminatory actions were taken against non-Aryan and leftist students even before any Nazi program for institutions of higher learning had been formulated. During the summer of 1933, the number of Jewish students at Heidelberg decreased by almost 43%, and students who were classified as Communists were expelled. References: 23.'Zusammensetzung der Pruefungskommission,' September 3, 1934, UAHD III, 1, No. 109. Each faculty had its vocational examination committee which prepared the final examinations for matriculating students, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Culture. 24. Ibid. 25. September 22, 1934, ibid. 26.Professor Max Gutzwiller was dismissed in October 1937, because he was married to a Jewess, and left Germany for Switzerland. After World War II he returned to Germany. 27.In an interview, Prof. Eugen Ulmer (Munich, October 1972), who was the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Law in the Gleic era, characterised Dr. Reinhardt Hoehn as 'an S.S. man and very dangerous.' Ulmer spoke of a case in which he was first reader of a dissewritten by a non-Nazi student. He graded this dissertation 'very good.' Hoehn, who was the second reader of the same dissertation, graded it 'very poor.' 28.September 27, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109. 29.September 25, 1934, ibid. 30.Prof. Ernst Hoffmann, a liberal and supporter of the Republic, was not dismissed after the 'Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service Law,' and at least until the summer semester of 1936 he taught at the university. Besides his 'liberal past,' this writer cannot suggest any reason why he was mentioned by Brinkmann as 'falling into this category.' 31.One can definitely presume that in September 1934 the Union of Roman Philologists had, as the rest of the academic Fachschaften , a Nazi title, and that likewise it was controlled by the Reichserziehungsministerium. 32.'Zusammensetzung der Pruefungskommission,' November 16, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109. 33. Ibid. 34.Herman Guentert joined the Nazi Party on July 10, 1937 (membership no. 5146190) and the NSLB on November 1, 1933 (membership no. 258263); Berlin Document Centre. 35.December 6, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109. 36.January 12, 1935, ibid. 37.January 14, 1935, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109. 38.'Promotionen,' February 6, 1935, ibid. 39.November 8, 1935, ibid. 40.April 26, 1935, UAHD, X, 3, No. 12. 41.November 13, 1935, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109. 42.November 15, 1935, ibid. 43.UAHD, VIII, 1, No. 134, n.d. 44.Interview with Mr. Yehuda Milo (Jerusalem, September 1972), formerly a member of 'Bavaria.' 45.George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology , New York, 1964, p. 197 f. 46.For detailed discussion of anti-Semitic trends among the student fraternities, see Hans P. Bleuel/Ernst Klinnert, Deutsche Studenten auf dem Weg im Dritten Reich , Guetersloh, 1967. 47.Insults such as 'Palestine force' and the like were common during communal events; interview with Y. Milo. 48.UAHD, VII, 2, No. 381, n.d. 49. Der Heidelberger Student , May 18, 1933. Part C While actions against students did not differ from those taken against faculty members in terms of timing, they differed in other respects. The students did not leave the legal status of their professors; discriminatory actions could therefore be taken without any fear of reprisal. Furthermore, the elimination of Jewish and leftist students from the university did not have a significant effect on the regular course of academic life. Given the fact that discriminatory actions against students stemmed from within the Studentenschaft itself, the victims had nowhere to turn for protection. In this sense, members of the teaching body enjoyed, at least for a short while and to a certain extent, the protection of their cathedrae; students, however, were completely exposed to persecution. The Nazi attempt to camouflage these actions with a veneer of legality, and the facade of a nationalist Rechtsstaat which, in theory, entitled the victims to claim legal redress, in fact offered no protection and any appeal became simply another incentive for discriminatory actions. Indeed, after the decree of February 28, 1933 ("Verordnung des Reichspraesidenten") 50 , the way was opened for a flood of decrees against "the enemies of the Reich". Moreover, a legal cover for anti-Jewish actions was provided by the "Law against the Overcrowding of German Schools and Institutions of Higher Learning" (Gesetz gegen die Ueberfuellung deutscher Schulen und Hochschulen) of April 25, 1933 51 . This law stipulated that the number of "non-Aryan" students in each university should not exceed the percentage of non-Aryans within the entire German population, whose proportion is fixed uniformly for the whole Reich.' Exempted from this law (though temporarily) were "non-Aryans" whose fathers had fought for Germany or its Allies at the front during World War 1 or children whose parents were married before the enactment of this law, if the father or mother or two of the grandparents are of Aryan origin.' A long campaign of the NSDStB to formally adopt a numerus clausus for Jews culminated in the law of April 25, 1933, which also marked the climax of the pressure that had been mounting in Heidelberg since the April 1, 1933 boycott against Jewish businesses. A series of anti-Semitic articles in the local Nazi newspaper, the Volksgemeinschaft, provided the appropriate background for the increasing pressures for a reduction in the number of Jewish students at the university 52 . On April 7, 1933, the day on which the government enacted "The Law for the Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service," the office of the Student Union in Heidelberg (Deutsche Studentenschaft Heidelberg - DStH) conveyed an urgent letter to the Baden Ministry of Culture 53 . Signed by the leaders of the students' "Nationalist Bloc" and the NSDStB, it called for the immediate introduction of a numerus clausus in the university. The quota for Jewish students was to be established in proportion to their percentage in the population. Moreover, only in accordance with tills quota would Jewish students be able to take the State's examinations. Finally, the mentors of the Studentenschaft announced that Jewish students as well as "Marxists" would not be granted any financial aid. The pressure from the Heidelberg Studentenschaft and the Volksgemeinschaft was perhaps responsible for a series of three decrees enacted by the Baden Ministry of Culture before the promulgation of the law against "overcrowding." 54 In these decrees the Commissar of the Baden Ministry of Culture ordered the university to note every "non-Aryan" name in the lists of the newly enrolled students 55 . Consequently, Baden was prepared for the law against "overcrowding" quite some time before it was issued. Following the law of April 25, the governments of the various Laender had to estimate the need for academic professionals and accordingly determine the number of new students who would be admitted to the university 56 . These were under no circumstances to include Jews. The definition of a "non-Aryan" was the one used in the April 7 "Law for the Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service." According to the new quota system, the number of Jewish students was not to exceed 1.5% of the total student body 57 . Yet the Nazi educational agencies had ruled that the percentage of "non-Aryan" students enrolled in the universities before April 25 could equal 5% of the total. In the 1933 summer semester 4.8% of the students in Heidelberg were Jewish (in absolute numbers 177 out of 3,687). As mentioned above, their number dropped drastically from this semester to the next by 43%. In the winter semester of 1933-34 the percentage of Jewish students in Heidelberg was 2.2% (in absolute numbers 75 out of 3,480). The following table compares the decline in the number of "non-Aryan" students according to faculties 58 : Summer Semester 1933 Winter Semester 1933-34 Change In Percentage Theology 1 Law 28 11 -39.3 Medicine 100 33 -33 Philosophy 37 15 -40.5 Natural Sciences 11 17 +54.5 Total 177 76 It is quite difficult to determine flow many "non-Aryan" students completed their studies during the 1933 summer Semester and thus to assess accurately to what extent graduation or racial pressure was the reason for their leaving. However, the overall drop of 43% and likewise the decline in inch of the three faculties in the number of the students was proportionately much higher than the total number of students who left Heidelberg during that period. In the winter semester of 1932-33, 28.7 %, or 964 of the students enrolled for 1933-34, left Heidelberg. In the summer semester of 1934, 35.4%, or 1,304 out of the 3,687 enrolled Students, left the university 59 . The increase in the latter case may be accounted for by the general decline in the student population of the universities between 1933 and 1935 60 . We do not know the reason for the increase in the number of Jewish students in the Faculty of Natural Sciences. Nonetheless, given the facts that in the 1934-35 winter semester their number dropped sharply to four (a decline of over 76 %), and that in the 1summer semester the number dropped to one, the above increase seems to be insignificant. In the final analysis it may be assumed that racial pressure at Heidelberg was a factor in the departure of "non-Aryan" students. Although numerical comparisons might not be fully sufficient to support this assessment, it is corroborated by several factual events. On March 30, 1933, the last elected Rector of the University, Professor Willy Andreas, informed the Baden Ministry of the Interior that one of his foreign students, an Afghani, had complained to him that he had been attacked on several occasions. The racial type of the Afghani,' commented Andreas, as well as of Persians and Italians, resembles that of the Jews.' 61 A week later the Baden Ministry of the Interior issued letters to the police directors in Heidelberg, Freiburg, and Karlsruhe (the three cities of Baden in which there were institutions of higher learning) describing the incident in Heidelberg, and concluding: Since there is a danger that these foreign students will quit their studies in Germany and continue them abroad, I urge you to explain to the people in charge that undesirable cultural-political and economic consequences must be avoided.' 62 The Afghani student was probably attacked because he was thought to be a Jew, and therefore the intention of the Ministry's reply was to reassure other dark-complexioned students that they need not fear being mistaken for Jews. The above incident provides a clear insight into the racist atmosphere, which prevailed in Heidelberg before the enactment of April 25 law against "overcrowding." Another incident, which occurred six months later, indicates the growing intensity of the anti-Jewish agitation. On October 13, 1933, a landlady informed Professor Wilhelm Groh, who had recently been appointed by the Nazis as Rector of the University of Heidelberg, that a student named Erika Anders had left her rented room without paying the rent. Moreover she had also allegedly made comments against Hitler in 1932, read "Jewish books," and brought Jewish professors to her room 63 . The Rector, who informed the police of the case, received a letter from Miss Anders on March 10, 1934. She demanded an explanation from him as to why her possessions in Heidelberg had been examined without her authorisation. As a result of the Rector's demand, which was approved by the Baden Ministry of Culture, the Gestapo arrested her in Munich and interrogated her "unpleasantly." Denying all the accusations, she pointed out that she was a baptised Catholic. A central event in the life of the Heidelberg Studentenschaft (and probably of other German universities) was "the burning of Jewish writings." 64 Initiated by the "Chief Office for Press and Propaganda" of the DSt in Berlin, this move was more significant than the usual anti-Jewish activities, yet, compared with the revolutionary aspirations of the students at that time, the action was ludicrous. Nevertheless, it may be seen as an outlet for aggressions deriving from growing feelings of frustration and disappointment. In the absence of a solid framework for the creation of an ideal Nazi university, in the book-burning, a flagrantly anti-intellectual action, became the symbol of vulgarised intellectualism itself, and the university, the fortress of intellectualism, could do nothing about it. This action, held in Heidelberg on Wednesday, May 18, 1933 65 , strongly reinforced the anti-Jewish atmosphere. In fact, it was regarded in May 1933 as part of the revolutionary elan of the nationalist Studentenschaft, which sought to transform a "deteriorated civilised university" into a Nazi school for German Kultur. The "burning action" was held in the Universitaetsplatz, the centre of the old city of Heidelberg, surrounded by several bookstores, the university's administration building, the Neue Universitaet building with the credo Dem lebendigen Geist (to the living spirit) engraved above its gate, and the old library. On May 6, 1933, before the "burning," the Weiss'sche Universitaets-Buchhandlung store sent a letter to the Rector, informing him of a request by the Student Union to display its appeal for the burning of "subversive Jewish-Marxist works" in the store's front window 66 . On the same date, eleven of Heidelberg's bookstores and book dealers, including the above, notified the Student Union of their refusal to display the students' appeal in their front windows. Respect for the written word - which no longer existed in the libraries of the university - was retained in the shops of the booksellers! The linking of Jewish and Marxist works was not accidental. It was closely connected with the "cleansing" process and as such served as yet another pretext to act against "enemy" students. Many Jewish students, it should lee noted, were indeed affiliated with leftist factions at Heidelberg, as elsewhere. The first action heralding the purge was the promulgation of a decree by the Baden Ministry of Culture on March 27, 1933, published by the Volksgemeinschaft in an article entitled "Jewish Money for the S.P.D. in Heidelberg." Regarding leftist students, the ministerial decree stipulated that on the basis of the law of February 28 "for the protection of the people and State" all Socialist, Communist, Marxist, and pacifist student groups were outlawed. On June 19, 1933, the students' organ, Der Heidelberg Student, informed its readers that the Fuehrer of the Heidelberg DSt proposed that the Rector expel the 26 students known to be affiliated with the Communists from the university.' It was impossible to let Communist intellectuals obtain knowledge in the National Socialist State, the newspaper argued. Immediately thereafter, several of the 26 whose names had been published denied any connection with Communism. Some of them claimed that their alleged affiliation with Marxist groups might have resulted from their attending a meeting of one of these factions. They, however, did not see this as sufficient cause for expulsion from the university. On July 8, 1933, at the last meeting it was to hold under Nazi rule, the Small Senate of the University discussed the matter 67 . Following this, on the same date, the Rector, Prof. Willy Andreas, issued a letter to the Baden of Culture Ministry 68 giving the Senate's decision. It was understood, he wrote, that Communist students, whether of "Aryan" origin or not, should be expelled from the university. These students, he further announced, would not be permitted to participate in examinations, and likewise their papers would not be corrected. Three days later, in a letter entitled "The cleansing of the university's Communist students," the Ministry of Culture made it clear that students believed to be Communists were to be excluded from the university's rolls. They did not necessarily have to be members of the Communist Party. It would suffice for a student to have attended a single meeting of a Marxist group of any kind to make him liable for expulsion. In doubtful cases, the Fuehrer of the Studentenschaft was to be consulted 69 . By this letter the Baden educational office empowered the Fuehrer of the Studentenschaft to settle political and personal debts simply by labelling any student "a Communist." By the beginning of the 1933-1934 winter semester the gates of the university were closed to anyone alleged to be a Communist 70 . The archives of the university contain several files pertaining to disciplinary procedures taken against alleged leftist students. In light of the law "for the protection of the people and State" and the authority given to the Studentenschaftsfuehrer to determine who was "a Communist", and given the fact that, since the spring of 1933, NSDStB students participated in the university's disciplinary court, it followed that whoever was brought before this court was doomed to be expelled from the university. Significantly, many of those accused were Jewish 71 . The disciplinary court, which in the past had protected "the academic customs and order of the university," relinquished its lofty principles in the very early stages of the Gleichschaltung. Towards the end of 1934 all Jewish students were to be subject to the quota system. Whereas the initial law of April 25, 1933 had stipulated that "non-Aryan" students whose fathers had fought in World War I and/or had one "Aryan" parent or two "Aryan" grandparents would not be included in the numerus clausus quota, these provisions were now eliminated. By May 1933 the Rector was ordered to set up a special registration committee, which would decide on the acceptance of new students according to the availability of academic posts. An admission of Jewish students, therefore, was to be carefully regulated according to a newly defined numerus relativus (which, unlike the first quota of 5 %, was set at 1.5 %) 72 . On November 13, 1934, the Baden Ministry of Culture issued two separate decrees. The first 73 stipulated that admission to the university was to be determined according to personal and academic qualifications, which would contribute to the German Volk. The second 74 stipulated that "non-Aryan" students would be admitted to "academic examinations" only if their fathers had been front-line soldiers during World War I and/or if they had one parent or two Grandparents of "Aryan" descent and if they were within the numerus relatives quota. Both decrees meant a reduction of the former 5% quota, and a worsening of the situation of Jewish students, who could now no longer be admitted to the university or complete their academic education. In fact, the University of Heidelberg was hardly in need of these decrees since Jews had already been refused admission before November 1934. On September 7, 1934 Miss Irene Kahn addressed a letter to the university, asking to be admitted to the Faculty of Philosophy in the 1934-35 winter semester, after having completed five semesters at the University of Frankfurt, one in Berlin, and two in Paris 75 . The secretariat of the university replied that her application could be considered only if sire had a father who had fought at the front during World War I or one grandparent or two great-grandparents of "Aryan" descent. If she did not fulfil any of these preconditions, she was to be admitted only if one of the currently enrolled Jewish students was to drop out of school before completing his studies 76 . On November 6, 1934 the Ministry of Culture forwarded a letter from the "Central Union of German Citizens of Jewish Faith" (Central-Verein deutscher Staatsbuerger juedischen Glaubens - C.V .) to the Rector Professor Groh inquiring as to whether Jewish students at Heidelberg had reached the percentage requited by the new Nazi quota system and, if not, whether it was possible for Jewish students to be admitted to this university 77 . Without any formal greetings, the Rector replied: The number of non-Aryan students in Heidelberg is precisely according to the required percentage and hence the answer to your question is negative.' 78 Since the percentage of the quota for Jewish students Gas vaguely formulated, it is difficult to judge the accuracy of Professor Groh's answer. The Rector's severity did not apply only to the admission of new Jewish students. Students already enrolled were also affected, as is illustrated by the following example. On November 20, 1934 the Dean of the Law Faculty informed the Rector that measures were being taken in order to comply with the November 13 regulations regarding Jewish doctoral candidates 79 . The Dean mentioned, however, that there were a number of Jewish doctoral candidates, who, while not falling into the category of the new November 13 regulation, met the requirements in effect up to that date. Not only were these students in the final stages of their work, they had also already incurred expenses in the course of their studies at Heidelberg. It seemed to the Dean that full compliance with the new regulations would cause severe hardship to these students, and he wondered whether exceptions could be made for them. The Rector's answer, short and simple, was that exceptions were made for the Jewish students who had handed in their dissertations before November 20, 1934 (the day of the Dean's letter to him) and were waiting for their oral examinations. We do not know if this was the only exception made for Jewish students, but we do know that five-and-a-half years later, on June 19, 1940, on the basis of the "Law concerning the Revocation of Naturalisation and the Deprivation of German Citizenship" (Gesetz ueber den Widerruf von Einbuergerungen und die Aberkennung der deutschen Staatsangehoerigkeit), the University of Heidelberg revoked the doctorates which it had granted to 42 Jewish students between 1903 and 1936. There was no legal or factual connection between the decisions of Professor Wilhelm Groh in 1934 and Professor Paul Schmitthenner's revocation of doctoral titles in 1940. Nevertheless, the preference given at Heidelberg to anti-intellectual criteria over academic rules provided the link between these events: During the Nazi period there was no way for Jewish students to obtain an academic education at the University of Heidelberg. The process of eliminating Jewish students, which began in 1933 when they were admitted to Heidelberg on the basis of the quota system, subsequently developed to the point where Jewish students could no longer enrol at the university and those already enrolled were denied the right to take examinations prior to their graduation (Staatsexamen). 80 Doctoral candidates had difficulties completing their doctorates and thus were denied academic careers, not only in Germany but also abroad. The process finally reached the point where the University of Heidelberg retroactively revoked the doctoral degrees of Jewish scholars who had completed their academic studies long before the Nazi era. The dismissal of professors and the expulsion of students were part of the same process. It should also be noted that while the transformation of the Studentenschaft and enforcement of the Fuehrerprenzip were gradual processes, which did not start before the fall of 1933, most of "the enemies of the Reich," faculty members and students, were eliminated from the Heidelberg academic community before the other processes had started. Paradoxically, because of this very distinction, the "cleansing" process was dialectically linked with the changes of the university as a whole. While the transformation of the Studentenschaft as well as the enforcement of a new institutional pattern were based on official directives, the university, at both its student and faculty levels, readily met the Nazis' racial demands in the "cleansing" process. Between April and September 1933, the last constitutionally elected Rector, senates, deans, and faculty forums continued to function. Though handicapped and apprehensive, their readiness to comply with National Socialist directives implicated them in the "cleansing process" carried out by the Nazis. Because of this same readiness, any degree of autonomy, which the university might have retained in the other processes of the Gleichschaltung was eliminated. This readiness became the thick noose, which bound together the historical events in Heidelberg from Fall Gumbel through the Gleichschaltung period. References: 51.RGBl I, p. 83. 52. Ibid. , I, No. 225. 53.Articles in the Volksgemeinschaft on March 28, 1933; April 1, 4, 7, 11, 19, 22, 24, 1933. 54.April 4, 1933, UAHD, VII, 1, No. 133. 55.Albrecht Goetz von Olenhusen, 'Die nichtarischen Studenten an den deutschen Hochschulen,' Vierteljahreshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte , 14, 1966, p. 177. 56.Report in the Karlsruhe Zeitung , April 13, 1933. 57.Paragraph 2 of the April 25, 1933 Law. 58.Paragraph 4 of the April 25, 1933 Law. 59.The figures are taken from reports in UAHD, VII, No. 134. 60.These figures were taken from the Vorlesungsverzeichnis fuer das Winterhalbjahr 1932¯1933 (Heidelberg), and the same for the summer semester 1934. 61.For the general decline in the number of students in German universities, see Hartshorne, op. cit. , pp. 75¯80. 62.March 30, 1933, UAHD, X, 3, No. 12. 63.'Bekaempfung politischer Ausschreitungen,' April 8, 1933, ibid. 64.Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe , 235/30063. 65.Analysing the burning of 'Jewish writings' in terms of organisation, quantities, reactions of the academic authorities in general and the Universitaetsbibliothek in particular, was among the more difficult tasks of this research. The archive of the university does not have sufficient material pertaining to quantities and titles of books burned. 66. Der Heidelberger Student , June 1, 1933. 67.UAHD, X, 3, No. 12. 68.UAHD, I, 3, Vol. 261c. 69.UAHD, VII, 1, No. 93. 70.July 11, 1933, ibid. 71.November 7, 1933, ibid. 72.UAHD, No. 219, No. 294. 73.'Erlass des Baden Kultusministeriums,' May 24, 1933; UAHD, VII, 1, No. 133. 74.'Erlass des Baden Kultusministeriums,' November 11, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109; Olenhusen, op. cit. , p. 193. 75.'Zulassung nichtarischer Studierender zu akademischen Pruefungen,' November 13, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 86. 76.UAHD, VIII, No. 134. 77.September 12, 1934, ibid. 78.Ibid. 79.November 14, 1934, ibid. 80.UAHD, III, 1, No. 86. 81.See also Olenhusen, op. cit. , pp. 183¯187. Back to the top