Print: "Die Klolektüre", January 2022, No. 1. KIT Archives 28005/146.
Criticism by students of their university and its political environment is integral to enriching the intellectual life of any academic institution. Without it, an important stimulus to question existing conditions would be lost. Such criticism does not shy away from passing judgment on the institution’s history and its notable figures. In 2022, a critique appearing in a series at KIT called “Klolektüre,” which translates as “lavatory reading,” lambasted the computer science pioneer Karl Steinbuch and protested against KIT’s computing center being named after him. It is written in the drastic style typical of the series. The introductory scatological language used in all its issues: “Scheiß auf …” borders here on personal injury, being directed at a particular individual. This “lavatory reading” does cite the latest findings on this matter but inaccuracies have also slipped in. For example, there is no clear documentary evidence that as a soldier during World War II Steinbuch had in fact ordered a female prisoner of war to be shot, as the leaflet claims. Nor could the naming of KIT’s computing center after Steinbuch in 2008 have occurred “in full knowledge” of his activities during the Nazi era, simply because the relevant scholarly revelations it cites had only been published years later. However, some accusations in the leaflet can be substantiated. Subsequent inquiries into Steinbuch’s biography prompted the decision in 2024 not to name KIT’s computing center after him anymore. Through their action, the persons behind the “lavatory reading” issue underscored the urgency of having an official statement made. kn
The Klolektüre calling for a renaming of the computing center at KIT, at that time officially called Steinbuch Center for Computing, falls under the category of a flyer or handbill. The essential criteria of a flyer are evident in its designation: rapid, uncontrolled, and widespread distribution; topicality and transience; yet, as a printed product, it provides an archivable and lasting contribution to discourse. This flyer was published anonymously and very likely originated from the student milieu, especially as it is part of a series addressing student issues, such as dormitory availability or student associations (Fachschaften). It can be situated within a politically left-wing context, including other “targets,” such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz or the author Joanne K. Rowling. Left-wing and radical left-wing agitation has been a motif in student flyers since at least 1968. Such handbills thrive on scandal, either by being scandalous, like that anonymous applause of the RAF terrorists in the 1970s, or by seeking scandal for better effect. The exhibited flyer contains a double scandal. Despite its offensive scatological language, the dialog does not automatically disqualify the anonymous authors. The scandalous content is far more serious: the Nazi past of Karl Steinbuch, the namesake of the computing center. He had been a member of the NSDAP and the SS and an active participant in the Nazi war of extermination. The flyer is based on historical research, although without making reference to it. Including such would have revealed that a historian researcher had been free to conduct this research on Steinbuch as an employee of KIT, with the support of the director of the Department of History and the KIT Archives, and could publish the findings in 2020 — without a scandal being raised. Consultations by university committees ensued and ultimately the decision was reached to rename the computing center. This was a late victory for Steinbuch’s opponents, who over the decades had been numerous. That outspoken professor had attracted student attacks as early as the 1970s. Through the Steinbuch case, object 100 thus demonstrates that remembrance at a university is subject to constant change and is continually being renegotiated. It also shows that actors from all status groups can exert influence on how KIT relates to its history. Anton F. Guhl