“Take back the Future” congress: TU management wanted to cut twice as much as the AfD

The AfD complains and the management of the Technical University (TU) Berlin caves: at the beginning of June, a left-wing student congress was only allowed to take place with numerous program changes. Otherwise the event would have been canceled entirely. Internal documents that we have released via the Freedom of Information Act (IFG).show: The management of the university wanted far stronger interventions than the AfD demanded. The TU even wanted to cut twice as many program items.

AfD lawyer called for program changes

More than 1,700 people came to the anti-fascist congress “Take back the future”. It was organized by the Socialist-Democratic Student Association (SDS) and the Students Against Right group at the TU Berlin. But some of the more than 90 panels and lectures made headlines in advance: the TU management intervened and threatened to ban at least parts of the event on campus. In order not to endanger the congress, four lectures had to be moved to rooms outside the TU. Ten more received new titles. For example, the lecture “Björn Höcke: Revealing a Fascist” by the sociologist Andreas Kemper became “Why you can call Björn Höcke a fascist” at the end.

The program intervention caused headlines and discussions – especially because it was preceded by a complaint from the Berlin AfD. A few days before the congress, a well-known AfD lawyer sent the university management a “letter of information and warning”. He saw some lectures as a “serious violation of the state’s neutrality requirement” and threatened legal action. The TU has so far neither wanted to confirm nor deny whether this letter existed. We publish it together with internal documents the Berlin Senate Administration.

The documents show: The management of the TU not only took the AfD lawyer’s threats seriously, they significantly upped the ante. The AfD lawyer only criticized seven program points in his letter. But the TU asked the organizers to delete 14 program items; so twice as many. The AfD did not object at all to the lecture on Björn Höcke, which was cited many times in the public debate about the near-cancellation. The screening of an anti-fascist film, an impulse on the strategies of the New Right or a lecture on the forms of resistance against fascism should also be canceled at the request of the TU management, although they were not mentioned in the letter from the AfD lawyer.

“Neutrality requirement”: TU follows AfD argument

How is it that a university intervenes in a left-wing student congress far more than the AfD and its lawyer demand? When asked, the management of the TU explained that they had not acted on the basis of the lawyer’s letter, but rather in accordance with the “standing administrative practice of the TU Berlin” and with a view to the approaching election for the Berlin House of Representatives. Some lectures, which were held in rooms outside the university, were about the Left Party’s election campaign.

However, internal emails between the university and the Berlin Senate Department for Education show: The TU began examining the congress immediately after the lawyer’s letter was received. In their emails, the TU management adopted the AfD lawyer’s argument that the congress was threatening to violate the “neutrality requirement”. And she stated the intention: they wanted to “prevent the risk of third parties taking legal action”.

“The AfD would have had no legal recourse here”

It is the first major political controversy at the TU since President Fatma Deniz took office in April 2026. Last year, the TU successfully defended itself against a legal attack by the AfD because of a student banner on the facade. The TU management at the time argued in courtthat the university has tolerated political statements and political events for decades.

The TU management received widespread criticism for its change of course. “State neutrality does not mean equating democratic and anti-democratic positions,” writes the Union for Education and Science in a statement. It is questionable why the neutrality requirement is even used at a student-organized congress.

The legal scholar Max Lenz judges similarly: “The statements at the congress are not statements from the TU, but at most those from the organizer.” The student organizers are not obliged to be neutral. According to Lenz, it is understandable not to allow partisan lectures on university campuses. As a university, it is by no means acceptable to threaten to cancel the entire congress at short notice and even to intervene in the titles of scientific lectures. His conclusion: “The AfD would have had no legal recourse here; I’m pretty sure that the administrative courts would have seen it the same way.”

The TU President received praise from others. The science policy spokesman for the Berlin AfD explained that he was grateful to Fatma Deniz for stepping in immediately after receiving information from the AfD.

→ To the documents

→ To the inquiry