The Correctiv research platform has once again made a discovery. The federal government, it emerged, approved Islamism expert Ahmad Mansour’s research project, even though experts assessed the project negatively at the first attempt. The scandalous project called “Dis-ident” has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Research with an amount of around nine million euros since July and is dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism in schools. The sponsors are the company “Mind Prevention”, run by couple Beatrice and Ahmad Mansour, and five universities are involved, who co-wrote the app but conducted their research independently of Mansour. University researchers are expected to investigate the effectiveness of preventing anti-Semitism through “Mindful Prevention,” which in turn yields practical conclusions for prevention efforts. Ahmad Mansour is a well-known expert on Islamism and an annoying figure among those who consider Islamism to be a smaller problem than Mansour. Only he is not the head of the project, but his wife Beatrice. Why is this consistently ignored by Correctiv even though it states so in the application? Maybe because no one else is interested in this issue. On closer inspection, the scandal content is low.
This research group criticized the Federal Ministry of Research, then still run by the FDP, for abandoning the project without a competitive process against scientific advice, after being asked to do so by FDP politicians on the budget committee. However, Mansour has submitted a request for peer-review. Three experts complained that the outline of the project takes a “deficit-oriented view of people with migration backgrounds and Muslim religiosity” and is based on the assumption that anti-Semitic attitudes “already exist” in Muslim culture.
It is a scientifically proven fact that anti-Semitism is strong in Muslim countries and among Muslims in Europe. It has also been empirically proven that Israel-related anti-Semitism is disproportionately widespread among migrants from the Arab region and Türkiye. Against this background, it makes sense that research examining the relationship between anti-Semitism and Islamic radicalization should specifically target young Muslims, as long as it is not conducted exclusively. In addition, reviewers were right to criticize other things in the first vignette, such as insufficient consideration of the research circumstances or unclear division of labor among project partners. Overall, they deemed the project not worthy of funding.
Suggestive reporting
At the ministry’s request, Beatrice Mansour submitted a second, much more extensive application together with the scientists involved, which included Monita and was provisionally approved the day after the submission on the condition that further recommendations from experts were also included – the funding would expire soon after. However, the second examination was not carried out because the expert rejected it on the grounds that preparations had gone too far. Instead, they encourage external evaluation and quality assurance. The Ministry fulfilled both demands. Where is the scandal?
Correctiv referred the question to a sociology professor with expertise in interpretive methods, who deemed the methodology detailed in the second application “vague” without providing further reasons. He also criticized the lack of information regarding participation requirements and data processing. He must have missed the detailed provisions in the research proposal. His accusation, which is also still unsubstantiated in his article, that the research design was not open-ended, is a serious one; it is aimed primarily at the universities involved. At one point, the Correctiv author even offers a kind of assessment of his own: Regarding the planned ethical review of the project by the German Psychological Society, he notes that this, as usual, was not carried out before approval. However, there is no general obligation to do so. The comment was not explicitly formulated as an accusation, but perhaps should be understood as such.
This highlights the journalistic approach. Correctiv’s posts are suggestive and biased. Ahmad Mansour was introduced as a problematic figure with quotes whose truth was not discussed. Scientists are presented as indisputable authorities on questions in which they have no special expertise. Your assessment will be cited as evidence even if it is unjustified or unconfirmed.
It is not unusual for funding projects to be approved quickly despite negative reports or no competition, although this should be viewed critically. Sociologist Ruud Koopmans stated that the establishment of the German Integration and Migration Research Center was also decided without any tender, and the multi-million dollar National Monitoring Institute for Discrimination and Racism located there was even decided without a report, which was confirmed by the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs when asked. However, the center follows a different approach to integration research than the Mansours and would likely avoid critical scrutiny. Or should we expect further spectacular revelations from Correctiv in this direction?
In Mansour’s research, the expert problem emerged in a special way. It is no secret that projects that critically address Islamism have struggled with scholarship. Blame for anti-Semitism among Muslims is often attributed to a discriminatory majority society. This cannot be true because anti-Semitism is also widespread outside Germany, and this often means that the deeper causes remain unexplored. Beatrice and Ahmad Mansour, who point to the religious and cultural sources of anti-Semitism, are an obstacle to this scheme and must be eradicated. The issues they raise are ignored and continue to grow, which is an irresponsible act considering the rampant anti-Semitism. It’s not surprising that platforms like Correctiv encourage this, but in reality it harms the democracy it is supposed to protect.
