The affair had caused a stir.
Last February, the Minister of Higher Education and Research Frédérique Vidal triggered an outcry by announcing on CNews that she was going to ask the CNRS to conduct an investigation into "Islamo-leftism" at the university.
A request that the organization had refused.
Before the National Assembly, she then confirmed the establishment of a "
research report
", in order to "
distinguish what is academic research and what is activism and opinion
."
Read also: How Islamo-leftism plagues universities
If Frédérique Vidal had received the support of a large majority of French people, as our poll demonstrated, and that of ministers Gérald Darmanin and Jean-Michel Blanquer, this proposal had quickly turned into controversy in the academic world.
And four months later,
Le Monde
reveals that six teacher-researchers are attacking the minister for abuse of power.
The latter will have to explain itself to the Council of State.
Formally waive the investigation
Indeed, lawyers William Bourdon and Vincent Brengarth introduced on April 13 a summary procedure and an action for annulment before the highest administrative court. In this sense, they ask Frédérique Vidal to officially renounce this survey which, according to them, "
flouts academic freedom and threatens to submit to political control, beyond the social sciences alone, research as a whole
". If the Council of State rejected the summary, it did send the request for annulment to the Ministry of Higher Education, reports
Le Monde
. Frédérique Vidal therefore now has two months "
to demonstrate that her decision does not constitute a misuse of the powers and responsibilities entrusted to her.
“, Argue the two lawyers to our colleagues.
To read also: Nathalie Heinich: "Some researchers make believe that an activist mush would be science"
The high court will in particular have to find out whether the minister has indeed entrusted an investigation into "
Islamo-leftism
" at the university to an organization, after the public refusal of the CNRS.
The opposite scenario, "
the most probable
", particularly worries one of the applicants, the CNRS researcher Fabien Jobard.
"
This would mean that we govern with threatening words and threats and this is not tolerable
", he insists to Le
Monde
.