There are people whose thoughts you like to follow not because you agree with them on everything, but because they make an effort to penetrate things. For me, Ulrike Guérot is one of these voices. I have been watching her lectures for several years now - not regularly, not ritualized, but when I come across a topic that I feel is worth listening to more closely. What strikes me is that her arguments are calm, structured and largely non-ideological.
This does not make her lectures spectacular in the media sense, but they are sustainable. You can listen to her for a long time without getting the feeling that she is trying to sell a ready-made world view. Especially at a time when political debates are often morally charged or emotionally truncated, this way of speaking seems almost old-fashioned. In the best sense of the word.
Europe as a biographical guide
Ulrike Guérot was born in Grevenbroich in 1964 and grew up in West Germany - at a time when Europe was still strongly influenced by the post-war order, the Cold War and the promise of the West. Back then, Europe was less a buzzword than a political necessity. This imprint runs like a red thread through her later life.
Her studies took her across national borders early on: political science, history and philosophy in Germany and France. Her extended stay in Paris and her exposure to different political cultures had a particularly lasting influence on her thinking. For her, Europe never appears as an abstract institution, but as a space of experience - as something that must be understood by enduring differences.
Early influences and political environment
Ulrike Guérot grew up in West Germany in a politically interested environment. Her parental home was characterized by classic bourgeois values and political discussions were part of everyday life. Europe did not initially play an abstract role, but appeared as a natural part of the post-war order: as a guarantor of peace, stability and cooperation. This generational experience - Europe as a response to historical ruptures - formed an important background for their later thinking, without giving rise to a fixed political direction early on.
This European connection deepened during her studies of political science, history and philosophy in Germany and France. Her extended stay in Paris proved to be particularly formative. There, Guérot experienced political culture, the understanding of the state and public debates in a different form than in Germany. For her, Europe became not only an object of study, but also a foil for comparison: how differently political systems function, even though they are based on similar democratic principles. This experience sharpened her awareness of structures, institutions and cultural differences - and laid the foundation for her later interest in transnational political models.
Europe as a space for thinking and shaping
This biographical and academic development explains her ongoing commitment to European issues. Early on, Guérot understood Europe not as a technical integration project, but as a political task that goes beyond economics and administration.
Already during her student and early professional years, she dealt with questions of democracy, legitimacy and citizenship in a European context. For her, Europe became a space in which fundamental questions of modern politics are concentrated: How can democracy be organized under changed historical conditions? And what role does the individual citizen play in a political community beyond the nation state?
No romance, no reckoning
What is striking about Guérot's approach to Europe is the absence of two extremes: she neither lapses into European romanticism nor into blanket reckoning. For her, Europe is not a sacrosanct project that must be defended at all costs. But neither is it a failed experiment that can be given up lightly.
Instead, she treats Europe as an unfinished political project that only has a future if it is openly discussed, criticized and further developed. This attitude - critical, but not destructive - also explains why her contributions have met with both approval and opposition over the years.
Thinking as an obligation
Guérot does not see herself primarily as an activist, but as a thinker. Her work revolves around concepts such as democracy, citizenship, legitimacy and political order. In doing so, she often remains at a level that has become rare in public discourse: the level of principles.
For them, Europe is less a question of current politics than a question of political culture. How do societies deal with dissent? What role do institutions play? And what does it mean to be a citizen of a political community that extends beyond the nation state?
These questions run through her books, lectures and academic work - and form the core of what can be described as her European conviction.
Europe as an idea - not as a bureaucracy
A central motif in Ulrike Guérot's thinking is the deliberate distinction between Europe as a political idea and the European Union as an institutional entity. For her, this differentiation is not a rhetorical device, but an analytical necessity. For Guérot, Europe is older, larger and more fundamental than the treaties, regulations and bodies that now go by the acronym EU.
While political debates often reduce Europe to Brussels, directives or budgetary issues, she tries to refocus attention on the fundamentals: on the question of what Europe should actually be politically and socially. In this sense, she does not criticize Europe, but rather a narrowing of the European project to administration and crisis management.
Europe as a republican project
Guérot repeatedly describes Europe as an unfinished republican project. She is not concerned with symbolism or pathos, but with fundamental questions of political order:
Who is the bearer of political sovereignty? How is democratic legitimacy created? And how can equality and participation be conceived beyond national borders?
Her often-cited concept of a „European republic“ is not aimed at copying existing nation states, but at a new political architecture in which civil rights, political participation and social inclusion are conceived in European terms. Whether this idea is realistic or not remains an open question - what is decisive for her is that these questions are asked at all.
Criticism as an expression of responsibility
Guérot's criticism of the current development of the EU is less anti-systemic than is often assumed. It is not directed against the European project as such, but against its political emptying. Where Europe is perceived primarily as a crisis response mechanism, she believes there is a risk of a loss of political commitment.
This criticism is formulated objectively and avoids simple apportioning of blame. National governments, European institutions and public debates bear equal responsibility for the current situation. It is precisely this balance that makes her position difficult to categorize - and at the same time, it makes it connectable for very different audiences.
Current survey on the planned EU Digital ID
Science, teaching and public discourse
Ulrike Guérot's professional career is closely linked to universities, research institutes and political think tanks. She has taught and conducted research in Germany, France, the USA and beyond. This international academic socialization visibly shapes her perspective: Europe does not appear to her as a special case, but as part of a larger political development of modern democracies.
Her professorships and teaching activities focused on European politics, democracy research and political theory. She always worked at the interface between classical science and contemporary political analysis - a field of tension that is productive, but also prone to conflict. In her teaching, Guérot saw herself less as a provider of ready-made answers than as a source of inspiration. For her, European politics does not appear to be a closed field of knowledge, but rather an open field that requires contradiction and discussion. This attitude corresponds to a traditional understanding of academic education, in which thinking is more important than positioning.
Students repeatedly report a high demand for argumentative clarity and historical awareness. Europe is not viewed in isolation, but embedded in larger questions of political order, social transformation and democratic legitimacy.
Between the lecture hall and the public
Parallel to her academic work, Guérot sought public discourse early on. Lectures, panel discussions and books are an integral part of her work. For her, this publicity is not a by-product, but part of the task: political ideas do not develop their impact in a quiet chamber, but in exchange.
It was precisely this visibility that made her a well-known voice - and at the same time vulnerable to attack. When science becomes public, it loses the safe space of purely academic debate. Guérot consciously accepted this risk, knowing full well that public debates have different rules to academic seminars.
Scientific freedom under pressure
In recent years, she has increasingly addressed the changed conditions of public discourse. Caution, self-censorship and moral boundaries have become stronger, even at universities. She links this observation not only to personal experience, but also to a fundamental concern about the role of science in society.
According to her recurring argument, science must be allowed to be uncomfortable. She had to ask questions, even if she didn't like the answers. This attitude forms the transition to the break that was to characterize her future path - and which shows how closely thinking, institutions and the social climate are interwoven.
Lecture: Can Europe make peace? - Ulrike Guérot | Westend publishing house
The break - conflict with the university
Up to this point, Ulrike Guérot's career path can be read as a consistent line: Europe as a leitmotif, science and the public as two sides of the same work. But then came a turning point that was not just a biographical episode, but changed the entire view of her person - regardless of one's opinion of her. The conflict with the University of Bonn marks a break because it did not remain in the realm of ideas, but led into the realm of institutions, procedures and courts. And because suddenly it was no longer just a discussion of what she said, but how she worked.
The accusations: citation, takeovers, scientific standards
In essence, it was about accusations that were publicly dealt with under the term „plagiarism“. The type of accusation is - in the public presentation - relatively clear: in certain texts, passages from other authors were not or not sufficiently identified. The university judged this to be a violation of the rules of good scientific practice and drew consequences under employment law.
For a personal portrait, a clear distinction is important here: it is not a question of renegotiating individual passages in the text, but of naming what the university considered to be a breach of duty. The decisive factor is that the issue was not treated as a minor formal error, but as a fundamental question of honesty in academic work.
The university procedure: Examination, evaluation, consequence
Following the publicly known course of events, the university not only took note of the allegations, but also had them investigated in a formal procedure. Such procedures typically follow fixed stages: first a preliminary examination, then - if there is sufficient suspicion - an in-depth investigation, followed by an assessment and the question of possible consequences.
The university came to the conclusion that the allegations were, in its view, of substantial weight. This shifted the situation from a public debate to an institutional decision-making process. And this is precisely the point at which it often becomes existential for those affected: It is no longer the debate that decides, but the file situation, the logic of the commission and the assessment under labor law.
Dismissal and going to court
The University of Bonn terminated the employment relationship. Guérot did not accept this and took legal action. This gave the conflict a second level: in addition to the question of scientific standards, there was also the question of admissibility under employment law - in other words: was this sufficient grounds for dismissal? Was the procedure correct? And is the measure proportionate?
The courts later confirmed the validity of the termination - in the labor law review. It is important for the reader to understand: Labor courts do not examine „truth“ in the ideological sense, but whether a termination is legally valid within the framework of the applicable rules. This examination can be strict, especially when it comes to trust, integrity and the basis of a professional relationship.
Chronology at a glance
| Date / period | Event | Level | Neutral short note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Publication of the book Why Europe must become a republic | Publication | The book is later cited as a publication relevant to the appeal. |
| 2021 (Sept.) | Appointment at the University of Bonn | University | Ulrike Guérot takes up a professorship for European Politics. |
| 2022 | Public discussion about possible plagiarism sites | The public | In the media and blogs, text passages that are criticized as being incorrectly marked are discussed. |
| End of 2022 | Involvement of internal university bodies | University | The University of Bonn initiates a formal review procedure (ombudsman's office / commission). |
| Feb. 2023 | University confirms violations from its point of view | University | The investigation concludes that scientific standards were violated. |
| Feb./March 2023 | Termination of the employment relationship | University | The University of Bonn terminates the employment relationship. |
| 2023 | Action for unfair dismissal | Court (1st instance) | Guérot takes legal action against the dismissal before the Bonn Labor Court. |
| April 2024 | Bonn Labor Court ruling | Court of law | The court considers the termination to be lawful. |
| 2024-2025 | Appeal against the judgment | Court (2nd instance) | The case goes to the Cologne Regional Labor Court. |
| Sept. 2025 | Cologne Regional Labor Court ruling | Court of law | The dismissal is confirmed, no appeal allowed. |
Two interpretations: Misconduct or chain of errors?
Parallel to the legal level, a second debate developed: the interpretation. Supporters and critics argued not only about individual details, but about the character of the whole.
Some of the critics of the decision emphasized that it was more a matter of improper citation practice, editorial negligence or problematic work under time pressure - in other words, errors that could be corrected without necessarily having existential consequences. They also referred to the question of genre: some of the texts in question were more essays, political books, public interventions - not classic specialist articles with a scientific apparatus.
The other side argued along the same lines: those who present themselves academically, hold professorships and speak with academic authority must adhere to academic standards - regardless of whether a text sounds essayistic or not.
What remains - without judgment
Even if the legal part has been decided, the effect remains open. For some, the case is a consequence of clear rules. For others, it is an example of how quickly a public controversy can turn into an institutional escalation. And for Guérot herself, it is in any case a break: a phase in which the focus was no longer solely on her ideas, but on the question of whether she was still viable as an academic authority.
The break is therefore not only biographical, but also atmospheric: it changes the framework in which readers perceive her later lectures, texts and appearances.
Years in the headwind
After the confrontation with the university, the stage and environment shifted. Those who drop out of university life not only lose a position, but often also the institutional resonance space: invitations change, collaborations become more cautious, organizers expect headwinds, and public attention quickly shifts from content to controversy.
For Guérot, this visibly meant less academic normality and more debate mode. This also changes the way one is heard. Even if a lecture remains factual, an additional question hangs over everything: „What happened back then?“ This is the typical mechanics of biographical breaks - they become a foil onto which everything else is projected.
Guérot herself described these years in images: she often had to speak in small, sometimes remote rooms - in other words „in cellar vaults“. This is not just a description of the location, but a symbolic narrative: the public debate is retreating, the audience is becoming more selective, the rooms are becoming smaller, the climate more cautious.
The decisive factor here is not so much the size of the space as the message: those who don't fit into the usual molds slip more easily into niches. And the more polarized the social climate, the more likely it is that it is not just what is said that counts, but who says it - and in what context.
Keep talking anyway - not as a provocation, but as a duty
It is remarkable that Guérot did not fall silent during this phase. Many people withdraw completely after such a break, change fields or minimize public appearances. She, on the other hand, gave lectures, continued to write and remained in the conversation. Not as an impulse to escalate, but as an insistence that ideas must be discussed - especially when it becomes uncomfortable. Anyone who sees Europe as an unfinished project will find it difficult to leave the debate as soon as it gets rougher.
Headwinds have their own dynamic. It reinforces the impression of camp formation, even if the person concerned does not want to serve a camp at all. Those who argue in a differentiated way are sometimes still given the labels that others need. In this phase, two parallel public spheres often emerge:
- the one in which someone is primarily considered „controversial“,
- and the other, where people listen precisely because of their independence.
Both can be true at the same time. And that's exactly what makes the years in the headwind so exhausting: you talk about content, while at the same time you constantly have to speak out against interpretations that are only indirectly related to the content.
After the verdict: A debate gains breadth
The conflict was formally concluded with the court's confirmation of the dismissal - but a new phase began publicly. For many observers, the ruling of the regional labor court in particular acted as a catalyst. In the weeks that followed, an increasing number of voices began to speak out, no longer viewing the case merely as an employment law dispute, but as a symptom of a deeper problem. Commentators, academics and journalistic observers took up the question of whether only academic standards had been negotiated here or whether the institutional handling of uncomfortable positions should itself become part of the debate.
It was noticeable that this criticism could not be placed in a uniform political context. It came from different directions and combined legal recognition of the decision with substantive skepticism about its scope. It was repeatedly pointed out that courts decide on admissibility under labor law, not on scientific appropriateness or social consequences. The ruling was thus seen less as a final word and more as a starting point for a broader discussion on standards, proportionality and the role of institutions in dealing with public science.
Between legal peace and public unrest
This subsequent debate gave the case a new dynamic. While the legal framework was now clearly defined, a space for discussion opened up that extended beyond the individual case. Questions about the difference between essay, political book and academic publication were raised again, as was the question of how sensitively academic systems should react to public controversies. The Guérot case thus became an occasion for many to talk more fundamentally about error culture, sanctions and the fine line between rule-binding and institutional harshness.
For Ulrike Guérot herself, this development meant a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, the institutional break was confirmed; on the other, public perception increasingly shifted away from the person to the underlying structures. The headwind remained palpable, but it took on a different quality: less personalized, more systemic. This shift is one reason why the case continues to have an impact today - not as a closed controversy, but as an open point of discussion about the state of science, the public sphere and free thought.
Comparison of evaluations and objections
| Aspect | Institutional assessment (university / courts) | Critical objections and counter positions |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the allegations | Incorrectly labeled transfers of third-party texts | Critics speak of citation and editorial errors, not of intent to deceive |
| Seriousness of the infringement | Considered a serious breach of scientific standards | Objections emphasize that scope and context relativize severity |
| Question of intent | Partially assessed as intentional | Critics deny intent and point to working methods, time pressure and genre |
| Affected works | Publications relevant to the appointment | Critics point out that some of these are essayistic, public books |
| Scale | Uniform scientific standards regardless of genre | Objection: Essayistic political books often follow different conventions than technical essays |
| Consequence | Termination without prior warning considered justified | Critics consider the measure disproportionate |
| Role of the court | Examination of the admissibility of the termination under labor law | Note: Courts examine legality, not scientific debates in the narrower sense |
| Public impact | Loss of confidence assessed as significant | Critics see reputational damage due to escalation of the proceedings |
| Context | Procedure as a rule-based decision | Critics see the case as embedded in a polarized academic climate |
Public talks and their side effects
This phase also included a public discussion that attracted additional attention. Ulrike Guérot took part in an interview format that was moderated by Flavio von Witzleben and also involved the Thuringian AfD politician Björn Höcke. The content was about fundamental political issues, not party political advertising. Nevertheless, the discussion was widely received and controversial. For Guérot herself, taking part was an expression of her aspiration not to rule out discussions from the outset, but to examine arguments independently of the other person.
What was striking was less the conversation itself than the reactions afterwards. In the public debate, the focus shifted once again from the content to the context: who is talking to whom, and what is being deduced from this? The event thus became part of a series of situations in which it was not primarily statements but the willingness to talk that became the touchstone of public acceptance.
A personal process with a public impact
In this context, another incident that became public attracted particular attention: Flavio von Witzleben subsequently reported that his business relationship with his savings bank had been terminated. According to his own statements, he had been a customer there since his youth. The termination was timed to coincide with the aforementioned conversation and triggered a renewed discussion - not about the legality of individual decisions, but about their signal effect.
Here, too, it can be soberly stated: The process was made public, widely commented on and read as an example of the growing sensitivity of institutional players in dealing with controversial contexts. This point is relevant for the portrait not so much because of the individual decision, but because it shows how far-reaching the consequences of public debates can now be - even when they formally take place outside of parties or state institutions. Many actors who consciously decide to engage in open conversations are currently operating in this mixed situation.
The breach and the university's dealings with Ulrike Guérot in the context of the plagiarism proceedings made such a big splash that even Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck, the well-known expert on Game theory, has created its own video about it:
Ulrike Guérot loses her professorship. Science in danger? | Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck
A cautious look ahead
Biographies rarely follow a straight line. They consist of phases, breaks and readjustments. What feels like a turning point in retrospect is often just a stopover in experience. Ulrike Guérot's engagement with the university does not mark a conclusion either, but rather a shift in perspective. The institutional role has been lost, but the thinking has not.
Anyone following her more recent talks will quickly notice that the tone has become calmer, less confrontational and more focused on classification. It is no longer about being heard at all costs, but about being understood.
Larger rooms again - a quiet signal
Guérot herself recently made a remarkable observation: After years of small venues, she spoke in a larger hall again for the first time. She did not describe this as a personal success, but as a sign of a possible change in mood. Perhaps, she hoped, there was more room for differentiated thinking again.
Whether you share this interpretation or not, she points to a social question that goes beyond her personally: how open is public discourse? And how much contradiction can it withstand without immediately splitting into camps?
Europe remains an open task
Europe continues to play the central role in this outlook. Not as an institution, not as a buzzword, but as a political task. Guérot does not speak of ready-made solutions, but of necessities: Democracy must be experienced again, political participation credible, debates open. Europe is neither a promise of salvation nor an aberration, but a space of possibility.
This view is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It is sober - and perhaps that is precisely why it is sustainable. Europe is not defended here, but taken seriously.
Freer thinking as a prerequisite
Perhaps the most important point in this final chapter is not a political one, but a cultural one. The hope that Guérot formulates is directed less towards concrete reforms than towards an attitude: that thinking is once again possible more freely without being immediately labeled. That arguments will once again become more important than attributions.
This hope is deliberately restrained. It promises nothing, it demands nothing. It merely states that societies only remain capable of learning if they can tolerate differences.
A portrait without judgment
This portrait does not attempt a final judgment. It does not attempt to rehabilitate or criticize Ulrike Guérot. It describes a path: that of a woman who has thought, taught and publicly discussed Europe for decades - and who has experienced how narrow the space for such discussions can become.
What remains of this remains to be seen. One thing is certain: Europe as an idea thrives on people constantly rethinking it. Even - and perhaps especially - when it becomes uncomfortable.
Frequently asked questions
- Who is Ulrike Guérot and why is she a relevant figure for a European portrait?
Ulrike Guérot is a political scientist, publicist and long-time observer of European politics. Her relevance stems less from party political affiliation than from her consistent preoccupation with Europe as a political idea. For many years, she has taught at universities, worked in think tanks and spoken publicly about democracy, citizenship and the European order. She thus exemplifies a generation of intellectuals who did not want to administer Europe, but to understand it. - Why is Europe so central to Ulrike Guérot's thinking?
For Guérot, Europe is not a side issue, but the central frame of reference in her professional life. She sees Europe as a response to the historical experiences of the 20th century and as an attempt to rethink democracy beyond the borders of nation states. This interest is biographically, academically and politically motivated and runs through her studies, her teaching and her publications. - How does Ulrike Guérot distinguish between Europe and the European Union?
Guérot makes a clear distinction between Europe as a cultural and political space and the EU as an institutional construct. While she sees Europe as an open idea, she sees the EU as a historically evolved form of organization with strengths and weaknesses. Her criticism is therefore not directed against Europe itself, but against what she sees as an overly technocratic and administrative form of the EU. - What does she mean by the idea of a „European republic“?
With the European republic, Guérot is not describing a concrete state design, but a framework for thought. It refers to a political order in which civil rights, democratic participation and political equality are conceived in European terms. The term is intended to initiate discussions, not provide ready-made solutions, and serves as an alternative concept to a Europe that defines itself exclusively through markets and institutions. - What academic stages have shaped your career?
Guérot has taught and worked at various universities and research institutions in Germany, France, the USA and beyond. This international career shaped her comparative view of political systems and democracies. Her professorships and teaching activities have focused on European politics, democracy research and political theory. - Why did she seek public discourse outside the university early on?
For Guérot, the public sphere is part of the task of science. Political ideas develop their impact not only in the academic sphere, but also in social discussion. Lectures, books and discussions were therefore not a by-product for her, but an integral part of her work. - What exactly was she accused of in connection with the University of Bonn?
At the heart of the matter were allegations of incorrectly labeled text citations in certain publications. The university judged these to be violations of academic standards and initiated a formal investigation procedure, which ultimately led to dismissal. - How did the university and legal proceedings proceed?
Following internal examinations at the University of Bonn, the employment relationship was terminated. Guérot took legal action against this, but was unsuccessful before both the Bonn Labor Court and the Cologne Regional Labor Court. The courts confirmed the validity of the dismissal under employment law. - What have the courts actually decided?
The courts examined whether the dismissal was permissible under employment law. They did not assess the political significance of Guérot's work, but rather the question of whether the relationship of trust was so impaired by the breaches that had been identified that dismissal was justified. - Why is there still criticism of the accusations and decisions?
Critics point out that some of the objectionable texts were essayistic, political books and not classic specialist articles. They see the measure as disproportionate and emphasize the difference between editorial errors and deliberate deception. - What role does the context of the academic climate play in this debate?
Some critics place the case in an increasingly polarized academic environment, in which public positionings more quickly lead to institutional conflicts. This interpretation is controversial, but is part of the public debate surrounding the case. - Has the conflict changed Guérot's public role?
Yes, clearly. After the break with the university, her work shifted more to the non-institutional sphere. Lectures took place more frequently in smaller contexts, and her person was perceived more through controversy than through her content. - What does she mean by the „cellar vaults“ she talks about?
The term symbolically describes smaller, less prominent venues and a phase of reduced public visibility. It stands less for victim narrative than for an observation of changed debate spaces. - Why is it remarkable that she is speaking in larger halls again?
Because this can be read as an indicator of a possible change in mood. Larger spaces indicate a growing interest in differentiated voices and that public discourse could open up again somewhat. - Is Ulrike Guérot optimistic or pessimistic about Europe today?
Neither. Her view is sober. She sees Europe as an open task, not as a success story and not as a failed project. For her, hope arises less from political programs than from a willingness to think openly. - What role does academic freedom play in your thinking?
For Guérot, academic freedom is a basic prerequisite for democratic societies. She emphasizes that science must be uncomfortable and generate contradiction in order to enable social learning processes. - Why does the article deliberately refrain from passing judgment on the case?
Because it is a portrait, not a commentary. The aim is to present processes, positions and interpretations without steering the reader in a particular direction. - Why is Ulrike Guérot a good fit for a Europe magazine?
Because she does not use Europe as a buzzword, but sees it as a mental task. Her life's journey reflects central European issues: democracy, the public sphere, institutions and freedom of thought. - What remains after reading this portrait?
Not a ready-made judgment, but a differentiated picture. The reader should understand why Ulrike Guérot polarizes, why she continues to be heard and why Europe remains relevant as an idea even when it becomes uncomfortable.
