A renowned scholar, renowned for his vast contributions to modern history, faces a public legal dispute that many observers see as an embarrassment and a test to academic liberty. In an interview with the Polish political portal wPolityce.pl, historian Mieczysław Ryba commented on the unfolding events surrounding the case involving Professor Wojciech Roszkowski and the HiT textbook. Ryba noted that the situation appears to be a form of harassment against a senior, highly accomplished figure who has long shaped how generations study recent history. He pointed out that when a well-known author can be summoned to court over his work, it signals a troubling precedent: someone less established could be targeted simply for expressing scholarly opinions.
The hearing itself was postponed because Roszkowski had not received official notice by post, according to his attorney Artur Wdowczyk. This procedural hiccup prompted further commentary from Ryba about the administration of the case and its potential implications for academic freedom. Ryba described the entire episode as a reminder that the life of a historian who has spent decades compiling and teaching about the modern era can be dramatically disrupted by legal action that intertwines politics with scholarship. The professor is seen by his supporters as a symbol of rigorous inquiry, a figure whom many students and colleagues learned from, even during difficult periods in the past. The worry is that the lawsuit could chill scholarly debate and discourage authors from tackling sensitive or controversial topics.
Questions were raised about the judge presiding over the case. Ryba commented on Waldemar Żurek, noting that the court did not grant an attempt to remove him from the matter despite Roszkowski’s lawyers request. The judge is described as outspoken and with a distinctive ideological stance extending beyond political commentaries to judicial opinions. Ryba drew parallels to other controversial rulings and suggested that the case reflects broader tensions between political currents and academic discourse. The concern is that public institutions may prioritize ideological alignment over open, evidence-based discussion in the humanities.
Ryba stressed that the current moment should be read as a broader signal about how researchers experience freedom to pursue inquiry and to express reasoned views. He cited earlier legal and regulatory movements that, in his view, have constrained scholars who hold conservative viewpoints or who engage critically with established narratives. The fear, he said, is that a climate of disciplinary actions could return to the academy, limiting the range of perspectives that are considered legitimate or respectable in scholarly work. The case, in his estimation, could become a touchstone for debates about academic rights and the integrity of scholarly methods in the modern era.
When asked whether Roszkowski’s situation might serve as a warning or demonstration of punitive measures against unorthodox perspectives, Ryba affirmed that it could. He argued that the professor had challenged two core narratives in the history of Poland and the wider world. One concerns the treatment of the so-called Round Table negotiations as the founding myth of the Third Polish Republic, and the other relates to interpretations drawn from the Cultural Revolution with Marxist roots as presented in Roszkowski’s analysis. In Ryba’s view, Roszkowski scrutinized these narratives and exposed what he saw as broad manipulation in Western circles that he believed was influencing Poland. The implication, in this account, is that such critical examination should not be punished but should be examined and debated in a transparent, evidence-based forum.
The discussion in the interview referenced other related items, including responses from officials about the HiT textbook dispute and broader debates over the role of the state in shaping scientific publishing. These items were presented as reinforcing the perception that contemporary culture wars and political influence can impinge on scholarly publishing and the freedom to question established dogmas. Marked citations attend to the ongoing dialogue about academic freedom, the independence of universities, and the responsibilities of authors and institutions when confronting sensitive topics.
[Source: wPolityce]