Austrian Nobel laureates question minister’s AI-in-class plan

A heated debate has emerged in Austria over the role of artificial intelligence in schools, pitting proponents of digital reform against prominent figures from politics, academia and the arts who warn that classical education is being sidelined.

The controversy was sparked by plans from Austria’s Education Minister Christoph Wiederkehr to reduce classroom hours for Latin in favour of media literacy and artificial intelligence training. The proposal has met strong resistance from leading cultural and intellectual figures, including Nobel Prize winners and former senior officials, who argue that the reform risks eroding a core pillar of European cultural identity, Austrian media outlets report.

Numerous representatives from politics, science and culture have warned of a “marginalisation of so-called ‘dead’ languages” and launched a petition opposing the reform. In an open letter addressed to Wiederkehr, who leads the liberal Neos party, the signatories stressed that Latin is far more than a language subject.

“Latin is not a language instruction, but represents our cultural heritage and our cultural identity. It is the basis of our thinking — and promotes it in many ways,” the letter states. For that reason, Latin and Ancient Greek classes must be “continued without restriction,” the authors argue.

Among the prominent supporters of the petition are former Austrian President Heinz Fischer, author Michael Köhlmeier, and three Nobel laureates: Elfriede Jelinek and Peter Handke, both awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, and physicist Anton Zeilinger.

Wiederkehr announced last week that teaching hours for both modern and historical languages at academic secondary schools would be reduced. In their place, artificial intelligence education and a new subject titled “Media and Democracy” are to be introduced from the next school year. The minister has defended the move by pointing to survey data suggesting that a majority of students and parents support the reform.

Wiederkehr reiterated his position this week, saying: “It is not reasonable for students and for us as a society to lag behind social change for decades.”

A similar debate is unfolding in neighbouring Germany, where Education Minister Claude Meisch addressed the issue at a recent conference this week, arguing that artificial intelligence should neither be banned nor uncritically embraced in schools.

Meisch said it was not the role of schools to outlaw artificial intelligence, but just as misguided to celebrate it without reflection. Instead, he said, schools should function as a compass, helping children and young people navigate the world of AI so they can use such tools responsibly, thoughtfully and with purpose.

In a 2025 German study by the Vodafone Foundation, more than half of respondents (56%) said they use AI to access more information. The survey questioned 1,000 students each in Germany, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom and Turkiye. In Germany, 47% of those surveyed said they use ChatGPT in their day-to-day schoolwork.

Neuroscientist and biochemist Henning Beck, who spoke at the conference as a guest expert, warned that “those who fail to engage with AI will pay a high price in the future.” He argued that public debate too often focuses exclusively on the risks of artificial intelligence while overlooking the dangers of ignoring it altogether.

Throughout his remarks, Beck emphasised the importance of maintaining a critical stance toward AI-generated content. He said students must learn to question automated answers, check whether information is inaccurate or misleading, and recognise possible manipulation.

According to Beck, this kind of literacy can only be developed through hands-on engagement with the technology. He likened the learning process to riding a bicycle: “You don’t learn how to ride a bike by making a plan and following it step by step; you learn by trying it out and sometimes falling over.” Schools, he argued, should provide a safe environment where young people can experiment, make mistakes and grow from them.

At the same time, Beck cautioned against using AI simply to accelerate schoolwork without reflection. Students who rely on the technology to write essays or analyse literary texts without engaging critically with them may gain little educational benefit. Over time, he warned, such dependence risks making students more easily influenced by technology and “ultimately less free.”

By Nazrin Sadigova