New Study Indicates High Levels of Self-Censorship and Perceived Restrictions for Scholars Specialized in the Middle East

According to a new study titled "German Academia after October 7: Self-Censorship and Restrictions of Academic Freedom among MENA Scholars" by Jannis Julien Grimm, Sven Chojnacki, Nina Moya Schreieder, Iman El Ghoubashy, and Thaddäa Sixta, which was published in German by the Center for Interdisciplinary Peace and Conflict Research (INTERACT) at Freie Universität Berlin on September 15, 2025, researchers with expertise on the Middle East and/or Israel/Palestine have been engaging in self-censorship in response to perceived and actual restrictions at German universities. The English version of the study was published on September 22, 2025.

The study, which constitutes the first systematic effort to investigate this phenomenon in the German context, draws on an online survey carried out among roughly 2,000 scholars who conduct research on subjects related to the Middle East and explores their perceptions of restrictions, practices of self-censorship, and institutional pressure across disciplines. The results reveal a tension between respondents' normative ideal of open debate and their actual experience of narrowing discourse, contestation, and sanctioning. The data demonstrate that this experience of uncertainty and restraint is not just a marginal issue, but is in fact widespread among scholars addressing the topic of Israel/Palestine. Status groups who have precarious employment conditions and rely heavily on third-party funding are especially vulnerable. Respondents also reiterated their belief that a central task of academic institutions must be to protect plural expression. The results correspond to surveys conducted by the Middle East Scholar Barometer in the United States and, for the first time, provide systematic evidence for the German context.

Results of the Study

• Academic freedom under threat: Roughly 85 percent of respondents have observed an increased threat to academic freedom since October 7. At 90.5 percent, postdoctoral researchers reported feeling the most threatened.
• Self-censorship is a widespread practice: A total of 25.9 percent of respondents reported that they "often" feel unable to express their views freely, while 76 percent reported exercising some degree of restraint, especially when talking about Israel-related topics. Researchers experienced self-censorship most strongly at public events (81 percent), in media contributions (54 percent), but also within their own faculty or department (42 percent).
• Reasons for self-censorship: Respondents stated that they tended to refrain from addressing the topic of Israel/Palestine primarily because they feared being misunderstood, becoming the subject of public hostility, and suffering professional consequences.
• Institutional pressure: More than half of participants (50.7 percent) perceived a notable increase in pressure to avoid the topic of Israel/Palestine within their institution. By contrast, only 27.8 percent reported an increase in pressure to speak out.
• Harassment and threats: Only 47 percent of respondents indicated that they had not experienced any threats or restrictions since October 7, 2023. Others reported that they had been confronted with hate speech and threats online (19 percent), accusations of antisemitism (19 percent), defamation in the media (16 percent), cancellations of events (16 percent), and institutional exclusion (14 percent).
• Broad consensus on fundamental rights: Respondents expressed strong support for the right of students to protest on campus, regardless of political orientation, while they considered the protection of free speech as one of the most important tasks of universities.
• Differences among status groups and disciplines: The more precarious and dependent on third-party funding scholars were, the more they felt the need to censor themselves. Researchers from the fields of Arabic studies, Islamic studies, cultural studies, and the political and social sciences in particular reported higher rates of self-censorship.

Methodology in Brief

The study draws on a standardized online survey carried out in spring 2025 to appraise the situation of scholars who have demonstrable expertise on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and/or Israel/Palestine and are based in Germany. The sampling frame was constructed systematically from publicly accessible and verifiable sources and reviewed internally for consistency. Members of universities, research institutes, and academic think tanks were contacted to participate in the survey. The average overall response rate was around 22 percent. The researchers applied quantitative-statistical methods in conjunction with qualitative thematic analysis and contextual interpretation of the free-text responses in evaluating the data. The methodological limitations of the study concerned its cross-sectional design, which did not allow for causal inferences; potential biases in self-reporting; and the mechanisms by which the participants were selected, which could mean that people who feel strongly about the topic were overrepresented.

Context and Outlook

The results of the study demonstrated parallels with the findings of the Middle East Scholar Barometer in the United States as well as other German studies on academic freedom and attacks on scholars who work on controversial topics. Specificities within the German context include the highly politicized and sensitive nature of Israel/Palestine as a topic in the public sphere and institutional reactions within universities. The study points to several courses of action, such as targeted measures to protect scholars at vulnerable stages of their careers, support for researchers facing threats, and a debate culture that acknowledges different forms of vulnerability without reproducing hierarchical solidarities among marginalized groups.

The study draws on a standardized online survey carried out in spring 2025 to appraise the situation of scholars who have demonstrable expertise on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and/or Israel/Palestine and are based in Germany. The sampling frame was constructed systematically from publicly accessible and verifiable sources and reviewed internally for consistency. Members of universities, research institutes, and academic think tanks were contacted to participate in the survey. The average overall response rate was around 22 percent. The researchers applied quantitative-statistical methods in conjunction with qualitative thematic analysis and contextual interpretation of the free-text responses in evaluating the data. The methodological limitations of the study concerned its cross-sectional design, which did not allow for causal inferences; potential biases in self-reporting; and the mechanisms by which the participants were selected, which could mean that people who feel strongly about the topic were overrepresented.