Academic Solidarity e.V.

A personal experience recounted by an American student in Business Insider is actually a small but striking summary of a larger geopolitical transformation. The author states that university education in China is much cheaper than in the US, better prepares students for post-graduation life, and has increased visibility on campuses, particularly for African students. This observation alone is not proof; however, it offers a good starting point for understanding how China has become a new center of attraction in education today (https://www.businessinsider.com/american-studied-china-universities-cheaper-2026-3).

China’s rise in education is not simply about attracting more foreign students. The real issue is the large-scale, state-sponsored research capacity, the production power in engineering and science, and the ability to use this in coordination with foreign policy. According to official Chinese data, the country’s gross enrollment rate in higher education will be 60.8 percent in 2024. In the same year, the total number of students enrolled in regular and vocational higher education institutions will be 38.9 million. This shows that China is no longer just “a country with a large number of students”; it has become a system that has institutionalized the era of mass higher education (https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202512/t20251231_1962224.html).

The picture is also striking in terms of quality. In Times Higher Education’s 2025 Asia rankings, China retained the top two spots and has five universities in the top 10 (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2025/regional-ranking). In the Nature Index 2025 data, China-based institutions also topped the list: the Chinese Academy of Sciences ranked first, followed by USTC, Zhejiang University, and Peking University (https://www.nature.com/nature-index/research-leaders/2025/institution/all/all/countries-China).  Furthermore, according to Georgetown CSET, Chinese universities are on track to produce over 77,000 STEM PhD graduates annually by 2025; in a similar comparison, the US remains at around 40,000. This difference demonstrates that university competition is no longer determined solely by prestige rankings, but also by the production of researchers and advanced technology human resources (https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/china-is-fast-outpacing-u-s-stem-phd-growth/).

However, to correctly understand China’s rise, a paradox must be seen. According to OECD data, China’s international student ratio in higher education remained low in 2023 at only 0.3%. This means that China is not yet a classic “international student hub” like the US, UK, or Australia. But the same data reveals another fact: China’s strength at this stage lies less in its massive foreign student ratio and more in the scale of its domestic system, its cost advantage, research efficiency, and its ability to establish targeted influence in specific regions. In other words, rather than building a campus economy that invites everyone, China is developing an education diplomacy that is effective in strategic areas (https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=CHN&topic=EO&treshold=5).

One of the most prominent areas of this strategy is Africa. According to UNESCO, the number of African students studying in China reached approximately 70,000 in 2019. The 2024 FOCAC Beijing Action Plan sets out the goal of deepening China-Africa science and education cooperation, establishing regional vocational training centers, and strengthening educational platforms. According to information from the Chinese Ministry of Education at the end of 2025, approximately 9% of international students studying in China receive Chinese government scholarships, and about 60% of these recipients are postgraduate students. This suggests that Beijing is not only pursuing quantity but also trying to attract future elites, especially at the master’s and doctoral levels (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389878).

From the US perspective, the picture is more complex. America remains the world’s largest international student destination (https://www.iie.org/news/open-doors-2025-press-release/); according to Open Doors 2025 data, there were 1,177,766 international students in the US during the 2024/25 academic year. However, uncertainty grew during the same period. According to internal correspondence seen by Reuters, the Trump administration temporarily halted scheduling new student and exchange visa appointments in May 2025 (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-halts-scheduling-new-student-visa-appointments-2025-05-27/). Subsequently, in August 2025, the DHS published a draft rule that would eliminate the “duration of status” approach for student visas and switch to a fixed-term stay model. NAFSA reported a 17% drop in new international student enrollments in the fall of 2025, resulting in a $1.1 billion economic loss and approximately 23,000 job losses (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-halts-scheduling-new-student-visa-appointments-2025-05-27/). In short, the US system is still very strong, but it no longer seems as predictable as it once was.

Therefore, China’s rise is being accelerated more by the vacuum created by American uncertainty than by American decline. For a student, the choice of higher education is not solely about the quality of the diploma; visa security, the likelihood of staying after graduation, the cost of living, housing, the political atmosphere, and a sense of psychological belonging are just as important as academic reputation. The Business Insider narrative highlights China’s cheap dormitories, low food costs, and more direct career preparation. This model may not appeal to everyone; But it can be extremely attractive, especially for students who don’t want to be burdened by debt, are seeking education in technical fields, and want to stay close to Asian-African economic networks.

Europe, on the other hand, can be both a competitor and an intermediate winner in this race. The European Union has explicitly declared its goal of making itself the “world’s most attractive destination” for researchers and innovators by 2025 (https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/choose-europe-science-eu-comes-together-attract-top-research-talent-2025-05-23_en). The EU higher education strategy also aims for Europe to establish more competitive and outward-looking universities on a global scale. On the other hand, Europe is already a significant draw: according to EU data, France, Germany, and Spain account for 58.7% of total extra-EU degree mobility. In Germany, there were approximately 402,000 international students and doctoral students in the winter semester of 2024/25 (https://www.daad.de/en/press-releases/erneut-hohe-zahl-an-internationalen-studierenden-in-deutschland/). Therefore, the hardening of policies in the US and the rise of China do not automatically weaken Europe; on the contrary, they open up a new space for Europe. However, to utilize this space effectively, Europe needs to be more decisive regarding visas, housing, academic career security, and research funding.

The outcome the world can expect in the coming period is that education will become an even more geopolitical field. Universities are not only institutions that produce knowledge; they are centers that produce influence, technology, norms, and human capital. China grasped this fact very early on and began to support its economic network with education. A new sphere of influence is emerging, particularly in Africa, through scholarships, technical training, postgraduate programs, and Chinese-linked career networks. If the US tightens its doors and Europe moves slowly, the international education landscape of the 2030s could be significantly different from today. The question will then no longer be simply “where are the best universities?”; it will be “in which countries are the future global elites being educated and shaped by which worldview?” Therefore, China’s rise in education is a silent sign of a new world order.

The scientific world must not only produce new knowledge but also safeguard its reliability. All actors in the academic world must take responsibility for eliminating zombie articles and preventing their creation.

Scientific publishing has long existed as a self-correcting system. As was customary, erroneous results were criticized over time, corrected with new studies, and scientific knowledge gradually became more robust. Recent findings show that this ideal scenario is being seriously challenged. In particular, the rapid increase in the number of retracted scientific articles has raised concerns about trust and quality in the scientific community.

According to Retraction Watch (https://retractionwatch.com), an independent platform that systematically monitors scientific publications, the number of retracted articles has increased dramatically in recent years. Research shows that more than ten thousand scientific articles were retracted in 2023 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8). This number is a record in the history of scientific publishing. Moreover, the increase in the number of retracted articles cannot be explained solely by the increase in the number of publications; the retraction rate itself is also rising (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10485848/).

These developments highlight a phenomenon that some researchers now call a “retraction crisis.” Retraction of a scientific article means that the article is no longer reliable and should not be used as a reference in the scientific literature. This decision is usually made in the following cases:

• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Plagiarism
• Ethical violations
• Fraudulent peer review
• Serious methodological errors

Unfortunately, retracted articles are not limited to studies published in small or low-impact journals. From time to time, even the world’s most prestigious scientific journals face such cases. For example, a case report recently published in The Lancet, which has been the subject of much debate for a long time, was re-examined. According to Retraction Watch, serious doubts have been raised about the reliability of a study concerning an infant who suffered opioid poisoning through breast milk (https://retractionwatch.com/2026/02/04/lancet-flags-long-scrutinized-report-of-infant-poisoned-by-opioids-in-breast-milk/).

One of the best-known cases in the history of science is Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper, which claimed that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was linked to autism. Later retracted due to ethical violations and data manipulation, this study continued to be used for years as a key reference point for anti-vaccine movements.

Retractions are not limited to young researchers or small laboratories. Retraction Watch data reveal that studies by some Nobel Prize-winning scientists have also been retracted. This suggests that problems in the scientific system cannot be explained solely by individual ethical violations. Structural factors such as academic competition, publication pressure, and research funding profoundly affect scientific production processes.

One of the most interesting problems is that the impact of retracted articles doesn’t easily disappear. Even after being retracted, an article can continue to receive citations in the scientific literature (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0277814). Some retracted studies have been cited hundreds or thousands of times even after the retraction decision. In other words, these continue to live on as “zombie articles.”

It is estimated that the number of scientific articles published worldwide today has reached approximately fifty million. Tens of thousands of these have been retracted (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00455-y). The percentage may seem small at first glance. However, given the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge, this number can have a significant impact. When an article is retracted, it doesn’t simply mean that a single study was flawed. Research, meta-analyses, and clinical applications based on that article may also be indirectly affected.

When considering the root of the problem, the first thing that comes to mind is publication pressure (publish or perish). The fact that academic careers are largely dependent on the number of publications leads some researchers to produce a large number of articles quickly. The emergence of so-called “paper mills” in recent years has made this problem even more visible. These companies can produce fake or low-quality articles for a fee and submit them to scientific journals. In some cases, fake peer-review processes or organized citation networks are also involved (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point). On the other hand, the focus of some commercial publishers on increasing publication volume rather than quality also contributes to this problem.

Retracted articles are not just an academic issue. Incorrect scientific studies directly affect health policies, clinical practices, and public trust in science. Therefore, scientific trust is a common concern not only for academic circles but for the entire society.

A rethinking of research evaluation systems is necessary for a healthier academic environment. Making research data and analysis processes more transparent, expanding open data practices, and more effectively monitoring scientific publications are important steps in this direction. Furthermore, retracted articles should be clearly marked in databases, and researchers should be informed about this.

The scientific world today faces not only the task of generating new knowledge but also the responsibility of protecting the reliability of that knowledge. Eliminating “zombie articles” and preventing their creation places significant responsibilities on all actors in the academic world.

Does a state being oppressive give other states permission to wage war against it?

Does opposition to a regime require remaining silent while innocent people are bombed?

The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a regional military conflict. In its first week, this war transformed into a global upheaval affecting the entire world through civilian deaths, forced displacement, energy crises, legal debates, and global instability. The war will impact not only the bombed territories but also laboratories, university budgets, research funding, transportation, and daily life. One of the first noticeable consequences in Europe was the rise in oil and energy prices. Goldman Sachs warned that if the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz continues, prices could rise above $100 (https://www.ft.com/content/d3e2c2a1-73aa-4952-b1f1-08c87042b507).

The fact that a state is oppressive does not give other states permission to wage war against it. As academics, we cannot view this situation solely from the perspective of geopolitical competition. Just as we opposed Russia’s attack on Ukraine, and just as we spoke out against the mass destruction and grave human rights violations in Gaza, we must evaluate the attack on Iran, carried out under the pretext of a “nuclear threat,” with the same ethical standards. Otherwise, the academy’s claim to universality collapses, and principles give way to camp loyalty. An intellectual discourse that remains silent when the perpetrator of an attack changes actually follows power, not law.

Some of the international reactions to this war are as follows: UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that the use of force by the US and Israel against Iran and the subsequent retaliations weaken international peace and security. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also emphasized that bombs and missiles are not a way to resolve conflicts, and that civilians are once again paying the price (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/global-reaction-israeli-us-attacks-iran-2026-02-28/).

The legal dimension of war is as important as its ethical dimension. According to a Reuters legal analysis, although the Trump administration defended the attacks on the grounds of “imminent threat,” these claims are not supported. Legal experts state that these attacks are seriously controversial under both international law and US domestic law (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/are-us-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-04/). Another Reuters assessment notes that the attacks push the limits of the US president’s constitutional authority (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-switch-are-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-06/).

It is noteworthy that, as often happens, war first corrupts the language: expressions such as “preventive strike,” “regime change,” and “destruction for stability” aim to legitimize power beyond the law. Therefore, the task of academia should be to continue defending the language of truth against politics that empties concepts of meaning.

Spain has emerged as a remarkable exception in Europe in this regard. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared “no to war,” announcing that his country would not be complicit in this catastrophe. Sánchez called for an immediate de-escalation of tensions and full respect for international law. According to El País, Sánchez stated that violence is not the solution and that considering blind obedience as leadership is the real naivety. While more hesitant language is used in Europe, Spain’s open stance shows that principled foreign policy is still possible (https://english.elpais.com/international/2026-03-04/pedro-sanchez-on-the-us-and-israeli-attack-on-iran-no-to-war-we-will-not-support-this-disaster.html).

Spain is not alone in opposing the war. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated that the attack was not in accordance with international law. The President of Ireland also called for diplomacy, describing the normalization of arbitrary occupation of sovereign states as a path to destruction (https://president.ie/en/media-library/news-releases/statement-by-president-connolly-following-strikes-on-iran). The Omani Foreign Minister stated that the negotiations mediated by his country had been sabotaged again, sending a message to Washington: “This is not your war.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi found the US and Israeli attacks “unacceptable” and called for an immediate ceasefire. Brazil also said the attacks undermined the negotiation process and that dialogue was the only way to peace (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/global-reaction-israeli-us-attacks-iran-2026-02-28/).

In contrast, the European Union’s common stance appears far more cautious and fragmented. While most EU countries call for “maximum restraint” and respect for international law, they also strongly condemn Iran’s attacks (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-nations-call-maximum-restraint-respect-international-law-iran-conflict-2026-03-01/). This balanced crisis language reveals that states often speak not in terms of principles but in terms of alliances and cost calculations. Therefore, the voice of universities, researchers, and intellectuals becomes more valuable. Where states remain silent or hesitant, academia must establish a moral language that does not change according to nationality in the face of human life.

The impact of war on academia is both direct and indirect. The surge in energy prices will put pressure on transportation and logistics costs, the security of academic conferences, international student mobility, scholarship programs, and the funding of research infrastructure. The disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and their economic consequences are not merely economic data for scientists, but a sign of how war paralyzes the knowledge-producing ecosystem. Universities do not remain neutral islands when war breaks out; they either succumb to pressure or stand on the side of truth and human life.

Here, it is necessary to recall the concept of “academic responsibility.” The academic’s duty is not only to produce data, but also to protect public opinion. To remain silent in the face of a language that reduces bombed cities to maps, deaths to statistics, and displacement to “security outcomes” is to sacrifice academic ethics for political comfort. Especially in times of war, universities risk becoming propaganda tools. Yet history has bequeathed to us the legacy of intellectuals who paid the price for injustice.

Throughout history, numerous academics, students, and intellectuals have stood against oppression at the cost of their lives. Sophie Scholl and the students around the White Rose at the University of Munich were executed in 1943 for distributing leaflets against Nazi crimes. Janusz Korczak, an educator and child rights advocate, refused to abandon his orphans in the Warsaw Ghetto and was sent to Treblinka with them and killed. In El Salvador, philosopher and university rector Ignacio Ellacuría was murdered for criticizing state violence and human rights violations. These examples show that the true honor of academia lies not in career but in the courage to speak the truth in the face of power (https://www.britannica.com/topic/White-Rose).

This is what is needed today regarding Iran. Legitimate criticism of the Iranian regime cannot be used to legitimize external aggression. A state’s oppression does not give other states a license to wage war against it. Similarly, opposition to a regime does not require remaining silent while its cities are bombed. Academic consistency requires both opposition to authoritarian regimes and rejection of external aggression. Human rights are not merely a discourse used against rival blocs.

Following the attacks on Iran, universities and academic networks are facing the consequences of a new era of war. Academic solidarity must stand firm on principles, regardless of nationality or bloc: the lives of civilians are superior to geopolitical calculations; war is the language of power, not truth; universities must not surrender to this language. We must use the same moral language for Iran today that we used when Russia attacked Ukraine, when Gaza was destroyed, and when sovereignty violations occurred in other regions. Because if the conscience of academia becomes selective, it ceases to be a conscience. What is needed today is not to side with the powerful, but to insist on the side of law, peace, and human life.

Today, nutrition is often reduced to calorie counting, macronutrient distributions, and popular diet trends. However, fasting, a practice thousands of years old, makes us reconsider a more fundamental question: What truly nourishes us?

Fasting shows remarkable continuity across different geographies and religious traditions. Ramadan in Islam, Lent in Christianity, Yom Kippur in Judaism… Is the emergence of a similar practice in so many different cultures a coincidence, or does it point to a deeper truth about human nature? The answer to this question lies at the intersection of biology and the world of meaning.

Biologically, the human body is far more dynamic than we think. Within weeks, 70-90% of the atoms that make up our bodies are renewed. In this sense, humans are more like a constantly flowing river than a static structure. What we call “us” today was not long ago a part of plants, animals, or the air. What we eat transforms us. But perhaps an equally important truth is that what we don’t eat also shapes us. The 19th-century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said, “Man is what he eats.” Perhaps today it’s time to expand on this statement: Man is shaped not only by what he eats, but also by what he consciously chooses not to eat.

The words of the Prophet Muhammad are noteworthy in this context: “The son of Adam has never filled a vessel worse than his stomach.” This statement is not only about nutrition; it contains a powerful message about moderation, self-control, and consumption ethics. In this sense, fasting is not just about going hungry. Fasting is the practice of creating distance between desires and actions. Postponing immediate desires allows the individual to reposition themselves both physically and mentally. This process can provide not only metabolic flexibility but also psychological and moral discipline.

Fasting leads to well-organized metabolic changes in the body. After approximately 12–16 hours of fasting, the organism switches from glucose utilization to fat burning. Glycogen stores in the liver are depleted, insulin levels decrease, and fatty acids are mobilized. During this process, ketone bodies are produced in the liver. Thus, fat is burned, providing an alternative energy source for the brain.

Beyond its effects on energy metabolism, fasting is thought to have cellular effects. The most debated of these is autophagy. Autophagy is an “internal cleaning” mechanism in which the cell breaks down and recycles damaged structures. This mechanism has been strongly demonstrated, particularly in animal experiments (https://livehelfi.com/blogs/all/discover-the-benefits-of-autophagy).

Clinical studies suggest that intermittent fasting, particularly Ramadan-type fasting, may improve some metabolic markers. A systematic review by Faris et al. shows that fasting may be associated with increased insulin sensitivity, decreased inflammatory markers, and an average decrease of 3–5 mmHg in systolic blood pressure (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31581955/). Similarly, a meta-analysis by Sadeghirad et al. reports an average weight loss of 1–2 kilograms during Ramadan (although this effect is often temporary) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23182306/).

However, these findings have a significant limitation: Fasting does not automatically lead to a healthy outcome. Dietary habits during non-fasting hours are crucial. Factors such as excessive calorie intake, high sugar consumption, and irregular sleep can negate or even reverse the potential benefits of fasting. Furthermore, fasting is not suitable for everyone. For diabetics, individuals with eating disorders, pregnant women, and those with certain chronic illnesses, fasting can pose serious health risks. Therefore, any assessment of fasting should include its limitations and risks as well as its benefits.

However, evaluating fasting solely on its physiological effects would overlook the true depth of this practice. Ultimately, believers fast not for the benefits it provides, but because of their faith. From a religious perspective, fasting is not only an act of worship but also part of a way of life. Humans are incredibly complex beings. Even the simplest machines have instruction manuals, so how reasonable is it to leave humans completely without guidance? From this point of view, we can say that prophets were not only spiritual guides but also bearers of a system for the practical aspects of life.

Fasting can become even more meaningful, especially for displaced individuals, those adapting to different countries, or those facing academic pressures. It can provide a sense of continuity, order, and control amidst feelings of fragmentation. When practiced correctly and consciously, it is neither merely a religious ritual nor simply a biological intervention. It bridges the gap between these two realms. Fasting invites us to consider the individual as both a biological organism and a being searching for meaning.

Published in June 2025, the comprehensive study titled “The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding” systematically analyzes the effects of democratic regression on academia. This text should be considered and kept on the agenda: https://zenodo.org/records/15696097

Although the handbook is written directly from the perspective of developments in the US, the conceptual framework it presents is extremely familiar and instructive for countries exhibiting authoritarian characteristics, such as Turkey. The most striking finding of the report is that democracy is not merely about elections; the real breakdown begins in unwritten norms before the written articles of the constitution. When democratic customs erode, the principle of mutual legitimacy weakens, and those in power begin to view their rivals as outside the system, accelerating the process of regression. In this process, populism, polarization, and post-truth politics work together. Governments that claim to speak in the name of the “people” divide society, muddy the information landscape, and weaken accountability. Academia, because it represents critical thinking and evidence-based truth, also becomes a target.

The handbook clearly reveals why science is one of the first targets in the process of authoritarianism. Ideological labeling of research areas, funding cuts, obstruction of international collaborations, expectations of “loyalty,” legal investigations, and smear campaigns are all parts of this process. The similarities are more easily understood when considering the expulsions, passport cancellations, disciplinary processes, and erosion of university autonomy experienced in Turkey over the last decade.

Another concept highlighted in the report is “punishment as a process.” The aim is often not conviction, but the investigation itself. Damage to reputation, public targeting, prolonged uncertainty, and legal pressure create a deterrent mechanism in themselves. The most dangerous consequence in this atmosphere is self-censorship. The text defines self-censorship as a cornerstone of authoritarianism’s behavioral architecture. As people choose not to speak, not to write, to change their research areas, or to remain silent, repression becomes more invisible but more persistent.

The “Serengeti strategy” metaphor used in the handbook is particularly striking. Authoritarian repression is often directed not at the entire herd, but at individual academics who appear to have broken away from it. The aim here is to isolate, intimidate others, and break the reflex of solidarity. Academic freedom thus shrinks step by step. The fact that certain disciplines in Turkey, particularly human rights, gender studies, migration, and minority studies, are subjected to more intense repression can be read as a reflection of this strategy.

One of the text’s important contributions is that it offers guidance on how academics can act based on the level of risk they face. The fundamental idea underlying these suggestions is: no one is completely alone, and solidarity is possible regardless of the level of risk. Sometimes media statements, sometimes archiving data, sometimes developing small but conscious objections, and sometimes telling the story anonymously can be a form of resistance. Resistance is not always a loud challenge; Sometimes, even remaining true to the truth is a political act in itself.

The report also reminds us that authoritarianism is not permanent. Citing studies examining mass movements between 1900 and 2006, it notes that most movements in which 3.5% of the population participated were successful. This information transforms hope from romantic consolation into a strategic possibility. Solidarity is also about quantity; visibility and collective courage create threshold values.

From the perspective of academic solidarity, this handbook should be seen not only as an analysis but also as a call to action. Defending academia is not an institutional reflex but an ethical imperative. The experiences of academics in exile, under pressure, or forced into self-censorship are not merely individual stories; they are early warning signs of democratic regression. When the space for truth shrinks, universities are the first to fall silent. When universities fall silent, the rest of society speaks much later.

Defending academia is not simply about protecting a professional group. It is about protecting public reason, critical thinking, and the democratic possibility of the future. Silence is contagious, but so is solidarity. Since authoritarianism progresses step by step, resistance must be built accordingly.

Recently, millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein have been made public. These files not only reveal a network of sexual abuse and criminal organizations but also offer a crucial mirror to the fragile relationship between academia, power, and ethics. The documents show how finance, elite politics, and academia are intertwined, revealing where the ethical boundaries of universities are being pushed (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00388-0).

One of the most striking examples of Epstein’s connections to academia is his ties to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It has been documented that he donated millions of dollars to Harvard between 1998 and 2008, some of which were directed to university-wide units, such as the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Although the university has investigated the visible portion of these donations and stated that it has not accepted donations since 2008, the ethical implications of past decisions are still being debated (https://www.harvard.edu/president/news-and-statements-by-president-bacow/2020/report-regarding-jeffrey-epstein-s-connections-to-harvard/).

Reports from MIT show a similar picture: over the years, Epstein’s named and anonymous donations were accepted, some of which went to research areas such as the Media Lab, leading to the resignation of several academic leaders (https://news.mit.edu/2020/mit-releases-results-fact-finding-report-jeffrey-epstein-0110).

These examples demonstrate that academic institutions may encounter ethical vulnerabilities in their search for funding. While money is a constantly sought-after resource for a prestigious institution, the question of what to do when the source of that money conflicts with ethical principles is often an issue people prefer not to confront.

The Epstein files contain not only financial documents but also correspondence with academics, academic meetings, and personal connections. For example, documents show that some professors had extensive correspondence with Epstein and attended events together (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/2026/02/03/nine-more-higher-ed-names-epstein-files).

Can such connections be defended with claims of “academic freedom” and “academic independence”? Academic freedom means freedom of thought, bold research, and questioning power. However, the issue is whether academia can maintain its ethical responsibility. Academic freedom includes not only freedom of research and expression but also the responsibility to maintain a critical distance from power relations.

When figures like Epstein infiltrate academic institutions through money and connections, the following challenge arises: Can academia maintain its critical distance from money, or will it succumb to it?

This event reveals a deeper ethical blindness than simply asking “did academia make a mistake?”: a criminal infiltrating prestigious institutions with money and connections, the institutions’ inability to openly question this, and the consequences remaining unaddressed for a long time… It’s easy to say that a donation should be refused; the difficult part is establishing standards that enable the decision to refuse and maintaining those practices.

We shouldn’t view academic solidarity solely as a defense mechanism against external pressures. In ethical crises, the greatest responsibility always falls on the academic community within. Academia must constantly question its internal power relations, funding sources, and ethical priorities; it must strike a balance between money, prestige, and connections and ethical principles. Ethical crises often arise not from complicity in crime, but from ignoring it.

The death of Ahmet Turan Alkan saddened all intellectuals. His final years should be considered a concrete example of the problematic relationship that authoritarian political systems establish with educated, critical, and publicly responsible individuals. In such regimes, repression is not limited to legal sanctions or imprisonment; rather, it is a long-term and multi-layered process of intellectual neutralization.

Forcing an academic or writer to write an apology under threat (https://youtu.be/fJbmMudSVi4) corresponds to mechanisms of “symbolic obedience.” The aim of these practices is not only to punish the individual but also to undermine the legitimacy of critical thinking in the public sphere and to set a deterrent example for other intellectuals. In this context, repression operates not through direct physical violence, but through symbolic forms of violence that create more lasting effects (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268022001574).

The interruption of Ahmet Turan Alkan’s academic and literary output following his imprisonment can be interpreted as an individual choice or withdrawal. However, this situation can also be considered as authoritarian “learned silence.” In systems where academic freedom formally exists but is effectively restricted, the cessation of production is a rational defense mechanism (https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu%3Acj82nr72n/fulltext.pdf).

The fact that his novel was not published by the publishing house he had worked with for years clearly demonstrates that censorship does not operate solely through state intervention. In authoritarian regimes, cultural and academic fields are shaped by self-censorship mechanisms due to fear, uncertainty, and pressure to conform. Thus, publishing houses, universities, and cultural institutions often become extensions of the power structure, often without explicit instruction. In this process, intellectuals are marginalized not only by the political power but also by their own social and institutional environments.

This individual example is part of a broader, structural process. In countries dominated by authoritarian regimes, critical academics, writers, and artists are increasingly leaving the country and seeking refuge in democratic countries. Although this is described as a “brain drain,” it is in reality the forced exile of public intellect and critical thought.

In societies where intellectuals are suppressed or systematically excluded, intellectual production slows down; universities and cultural institutions lose their critical functions. This reduces the accountability of political power while paving the way for the further entrenchment of the authoritarian structure. This relationship between intellectual impoverishment and political repression creates a self-reinforcing and difficult-to-break vicious cycle.

The final years of Ahmet Turan Alkan’s life are significant in demonstrating how this cycle operates at the individual level. Following his death, condolences were written from various political circles. His story illustrates not only the silencing of a writer, but also the tendency of authoritarian systems to produce intellectuals whose value is not appreciated during their lifetime, but remembered only after their death.

The international academic community should not only support exiled academics, but also make visible the intellectual cost of authoritarianism. In this way, the vicious cycle of silencing intellectuals can be broken. Because societies that silence their intellectuals lose their intellectual output, their critical capacity, and their democratic future in the long run.

As every year, the Davos World Economic Forum served as an important showcase of how global political and economic elites view the world and the priorities that guide them. However, this year’s discussions focused not only on economic growth or technological innovation, but also on security, geopolitical competition, democratic decline, and global inequalities.
The world is evolving into an increasingly polarized structure. The US-China rivalry, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and instability in the Middle East are transforming the economy into an arena driven more by geopolitical calculations than by classic market dynamics. Areas such as energy security, food supply, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence are considered not only economic but also strategic power elements.
The US military intervention in Venezuela in January 2026 and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro sparked widespread debate from an international law perspective. While many governments described this intervention as a violation of sovereignty, the US administration defended it on the grounds of “national security.” This situation has reinforced concerns that world politics is no longer determined by international norms, but by direct power politics.
However, the renewed diplomatic tension over Greenland shows that global actors are prioritizing their own interests over the interests of the world. The US’s tendency to seize Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark, on “strategic” grounds, and the strong rebukes that followed are raising questions about Europe’s security policy and transatlantic relations. While Greenland’s local leaders emphasize the message “we are not for sale,” European countries are trying to send a message of unity against such initiatives. Germany’s search for new partners is noteworthy.
The effects of this transformation on academia are becoming increasingly visible. On the one hand, universities are becoming increasingly dependent on states’ security priorities and corporations’ profit expectations; on the other hand, the space for critical thinking, independent research, and academic freedom is shrinking. Social sciences, human rights, democracy, and migration studies are either losing funding or facing political pressure in many countries.
Universities are becoming increasingly unsafe spaces for academics, particularly in countries experiencing rising authoritarianism. As a result, forced academic migration, academic exile, and fragile integration processes are becoming more common. This is not merely an individual human rights issue; it is also a structural problem threatening the quality and diversity of global knowledge production.
The discourse on artificial intelligence and digitalization, frequently emphasized in Davos, also has a dual character for universities. While offering the potential to increase scientific productivity, it also carries the risk of transforming academia into an R&D extension of large technology companies. The commercialization of knowledge makes discussions about ethical responsibility and public benefit even more urgent.
In this context, the importance of academic solidarity networks is greater than ever. Initiatives like Academic Solidarity not only provide support to exiled academics but also create alternative public spaces that defend the independence of knowledge, academic freedom, and universal values. In a period of increasing global uncertainty, reminding universities of their social responsibility and strengthening cross-border academic solidarity are not only ethical choices but also historical necessities.
https://www.weforum.org/meetings/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2026/
https://decode39.com/13228/italy-and-germany-double-down-on-competitiveness-and-defense-at-rome-summit/
https://www.deutschland.de/en/news/germany-and-india-seek-to-deepen-their-relationship

In a period when trust in international institutions and dominant ideologies is shaken, the search for “meaning” is not only an individual problem; it also shapes the future of academic production, freedom of expression, and public debate.

An analysis published on TR724 argues that the cultural and political influence of American hegemony is weakening, the current global order is losing its ideological persuasive power, and this is being replaced by a search for new, as yet undefined, norms. This discussion particularly highlights the perception of double standards that hinder the assimilation of universal values such as justice, equality, and freedom. It is stated that the American-centric, uniform definition of culture and success will be replaced by a globalized multiplicity of voices, but this has not yet been clearly defined in a model (https://www.tr724.com/amerikan-ruyasinin-ardindan-islami-dusuncenin-yeni-kuresel-duzendeki-yeri/).

At one end of this search for global norms lies the possibility of a global re-discussion of Islamic thought. As the established Western-centric narrative weakens, alternative cultural and faith-based frameworks can offer avenues for meaning-making. However, when such a discourse goes beyond mere discussion of cultural preferences (i.e., when it enters the realm of public and educational policies and freedom of thought), the necessity arises to evaluate it within the context of academic freedom.

No matter how widely ideological ruptures and searches for meaning are discussed globally, they can only be addressed in a free and pluralistic research environment. Academic freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for the sustainability of a society’s intellectual capacity and public reason. However, today there are strong indications that this freedom is being restricted in many countries (especially Turkey).

In Turkey, academic freedom has systematically declined since 2016. The country ranks low in various academic freedom indices, and university autonomy has been significantly weakened. This structural change leaves research, publishing, and teaching activities under sharply repressive conditions. Academics face the risk of investigation, disciplinary action, or dismissal when expressing their political views (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365383126_Academic_Freedom_in_Turkey).

The “Call for Peace” (We Will Not Be Complicit in This Crime!) declaration, published in 2016, signed by thousands of academics, is one of the best-known examples in Turkey. The signatory academics faced heavy public and media pressure; some were arrested, and hundreds were dismissed or forced to resign. This process demonstrated how fragile academic freedom is when those representing academic thought in the public sphere directly clash with state policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics_for_Peace).

This example also underscores the importance of international academic solidarity in response to global calls. Academics in the diaspora, while defending rights-based norms, draw attention to the repressive environment in their own countries, attempting to position the issue as a matter of freedom in the global public sphere. Such transnational networks are not merely individual advocacy practices, but can also contribute to the redefinition of universal norms of academic freedom (https://www.academia.edu/143876743/Peace_Profile_Academics_for_Peace_in_Turkey).

According to the TR724 commentary, the erosion of hegemonic narratives in the current world order makes it possible for different intellectual traditions to become visible again. In this context, Islamic thought is positioned on the horizon of discussion as an alternative, especially when Western-centric norms are criticized.

However, the critical question is: In what environment and within what frameworks are we discussing the search for global norms? Unless comparative analysis of intellectual traditions and issues such as faith and secularism is addressed at the academic level, such discussions can turn into polarizing discourses and popular manipulation in the public sphere. Therefore, academic freedom and an independent research environment represent not merely a normative choice such as “which thought is better?”, but a ground where ideas can be discussed fairly, evidence-based, and critically.

Today, many academics have been forced to leave their countries due to political pressure, human rights violations, or economic hardship. These intellectuals, in exile, strive to continue their work in their respective disciplines while also bringing new perspectives to global academic communities.

The experiences of exiled academics are not merely stories of individual victimization. They also constitute crucial focal points for rethinking global academic networks, normative values, and freedom of expression. These intellectuals, operating across diverse cultural and legal contexts, can contribute to global knowledge production and thereby mediate the expansion of academic freedom beyond the national level.

It is not surprising that people and societies embark on a “search for meaning” amidst the fragility of the global order. However, for this search to be conducted fairly, pluralistically, and freely, it cannot be reduced to a mere clash of values, as it might suggest; free academic production, freedom of expression, and a public sphere of debate are indispensable.

In countries like Turkey today, where academic freedom is restricted, intellectuals are under pressure or forced into exile. Discussing the global search for meaning necessitates defending the spaces that will guide this discussion.