You were appointed as acting director of the Centre a few months ago, so it seems you’re now in a position to answer many of the questions we’ve all been asking. Let’s start at the beginning: why did the University authorities believe the CWB required changes?

Dr hab. Patrycja Matusz, prof. UWr, Vice-Rector for Internationalisation: To start with, I would remind everyone that the former director of the CWB, prof. Krzysztof Ruchniewicz, resigned from his post even before the internal audit at the Centre had been concluded (see: https://uwr.edu.pl/oswiadczenie-prof-roberta-olkiewicza-rektora-uwr/). At the same time, he requested permission to take up additional employment at a research institute subordinate to the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage. We now know that this was the Pilecki Institute.

In line with his request and legal requirements, the director was granted approval to take up the post in Warsaw. Rector Robert Olkiewicz also accepted Professor Ruchniewicz’s resignation as Director of the Centre but—at the request of the German side—appointed him acting director until a competition for a new director could be announced and resolved.

If I’m not mistaken, that would be the first such competition in the Centre’s 20-year history?

Exactly. From the beginning, the University authorities have emphasised that the Willy Brandt Centre is of great importance to the institution, but also that serious changes in its functioning were necessary. This was also highlighted by the findings of the internal audit, which—let me remind you—resulted in a formal report to the public prosecutor concerning identified violations. A prosecutorial investigation is currently ongoing. We await the prosecutor’s decisions.

Was that the reason why the Rector removed the director from his acting position? Or were there other reasons?

The Rector made this difficult decision primarily due to Professor Ruchniewicz’s lack of willingness to cooperate with the University and the inefficient use of the Centre’s resources during that time.

The media have mentioned a sum of 200 euros. That doesn’t seem like a particularly significant amount.

This is not about the now almost anecdotal “200 euros,” but rather about a lack of communication, delays in processing documents, and other inactions that effectively paralysed the Centre’s operations.

Yet the competition never took place. Why not?

The competition remains in a kind of “limbo,” but not because of the University’s actions. Please remember that the CWB is co-managed with the German side. We submitted our proposals for the competition conditions, but have yet to receive a response. It appears they need more time to come to terms with the fact that, after 20 years of the Centre’s operation, the Polish side expects a transparent competition for the director’s position. As a university, we also have clear expectations that the Centre’s work should equally serve the goals of both sides in a balanced way. These are not demands that should come as a surprise to the DAAD—an organisation with a long history, significant achievements, and a well-established commitment to democratic and transparent procedures. We merely ask that these principles and procedures apply equally to all parties involved in the project.

So, is it fair to say that the Centre is effectively non-functional at the moment?

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. Thankfully, the current situation has not interfered with the day-to-day functioning of the Centre. The CWB team continues its regular activities. For example, staff recently took part in the annual meeting of Willy Brandt Centres, held this year in Brazil. I also do my best to ensure that they attend planned conferences, scientific meetings, and make use of their scheduled research leave. We meet regularly as part of the CWB council, and in my view, these are constructive meetings conducted in a friendly and professional atmosphere. I’d like to believe this is not just my impression. We are currently focused on ensuring that the recruitment process for the Interdisciplinary European Studies programme runs as smoothly and effectively as possible. And, while we’re on the subject, I’d like to warmly encourage applications to the programme.

In the autumn, we’re planning several more exciting events. I’m also in talks with colleagues from other institutions about joint initiatives and projects for 2026. I’ll share the details once these discussions materialise. And of course, I’ll be discussing everything first with the CWB team.

The media have talked a lot about the DAAD’s financial contribution to the Centre. But how much does the University of Wrocław contribute to the running costs of the CWB?

The Centre is co-financed by both institutions. Until now, the DAAD’s contribution has been approximately €250,000 annually. The University funds the other part—over one million złoty per year.

How does that compare to the University’s overall budget?

The University’s total budget is 860 million złoty, so the CWB represents only a tiny fraction of that amount.

In your opinion, has the Centre’s activity in recent years been satisfactory?

Unfortunately, I have to say it has not. One of the reasons is that several individuals who had been particularly active in securing funding for large, prestigious research projects left the Centre in recent years for various reasons. In my view—and not only mine—this was a significant loss for the Centre’s potential and reputation. Those projects not only brought in research funding but also provided numerous opportunities to strengthen partnerships and enhance international standing. The projects were transferred to the Faculty of Social Sciences, where the former CWB staff are now employed.

I have a positive view of the current CWB team, as I believe each member is doing their best. However, I cannot say the same about the management of the unit. The absence of large international projects coordinated by the Centre is a serious loss for the University. It was also problematic that while the CWB leadership produced many publications, a large portion of them were not published in highly ranked journals—something we all know is important for the University’s overall evaluation. The academic events organised by the Centre were rather small-scale and brought neither prestige nor significant academic value to the University, nor even visibility, as they were barely mentioned in the media.

That said, I truly believe that under new leadership—after the competition is completed—the current team will be capable of delivering far better results and becoming a real asset to the University of Wrocław.

Perhaps you’re being too critical. Maybe other similar University units have operated at a comparable level?

By way of comparison, I’ll mention the IDUB Excellence Incubators. These units, which are similar in size in terms of staff, receive about 800,000 złoty annually from the University budget. Many of them have secured multi-million-złoty grants from the National Science Centre and other sources, enabling them to operate on a much larger scale.

Then why did the DAAD continue to support the CWB and Professor Ruchniewicz?

That’s not a question for me. I don’t wish to speculate or pass judgement on our partners. Perhaps the DAAD was unaware of how our top-performing units at UWr operate—what the benchmark is. Perhaps they didn’t have high expectations. I have invited our DAAD partners to discuss the future of the CWB, and I hope we will jointly define our future priorities.

Is it true that the DAAD wants to terminate its cooperation with the University of Wrocław regarding the CWB?

Based on the most recent correspondence and our latest discussions, it appears not. Cooperation continues, and there are already plans for 2026. Just last week, the German side asked me to prepare a proposed activity and expenditure plan for the 2025/2026 academic year. However, we do know that due to internal reasons, the DAAD intends to reduce its financial involvement in future years. This change in funding applies to other centres within the network as well.

Have you already responded to these proposals?

Yes. In my correspondence with the DAAD, I emphasised that the funding—regardless of the amount—should serve not only the individual development of CWB staff but also strengthen cooperation. That’s why we will be organising a seminar in the autumn to discuss what we can do together. Those who know me are aware that I have strong faith in interdisciplinary research, which opens up many funding opportunities. Let me also remind you that we are a member of the Arqus alliance—where Leipzig is one of our partners—and we have joined the Coimbra Group, which brings further possibilities.

What is your vision for the future of the Willy Brandt Centre?

I believe the strength of the CWB lies in its current team—not in its past or present leadership. From my experience, a weak organisation is one that falls into disarray when its leader changes. I believe in mentoring and developing future successors—this is the responsibility of every leader. Every team sometimes needs change in order to grow. No one is in their position forever—unless we’re talking about people like Putin or Lukashenko. But those certainly aren’t our role models.

There are many people at the University of Wrocław conducting Polish-German research, and I’d like to see the Centre become a hub for collaboration and dialogue around these and broader European studies. Such openness would generate a synergy effect and undoubtedly lead to stronger projects and a bigger budget. It’s also an ideal place for visiting professors. Moreover, I am convinced that the academic programme offered at the CWB could become a kind of laboratory for testing new, flexible forms of international education—further enhancing its appeal.

Finally, a slightly provocative question: perhaps the Centre’s existing model has simply run its course. Is it time to shut the project down altogether?

I don’t believe so. There is still a place for the Willy Brandt Centre within the University of Wrocław. I am convinced that a well-managed institution like a Polish-German research centre can contribute to a rational and constructive dialogue—especially in these times of rising anti-German and anti-European sentiment, particularly here in Wrocław. We live in a city that is gaining symbolic importance in the dialogue with our western neighbour. Let’s not squander that—and above all, let’s base this dialogue on tangible, well-thought-out initiatives, not on imagined media narratives.

Thank you for the conversation.

Complied by: Katarzyna Górowicz-Maćkiewicz

Date of publication: 24.07.2025

Added by: EJK