© IMAGO/Andreas Weihs
Analyse
There are texts that stay in your mind—not because they are good, but because they so candidly reveal someone’s true thoughts. In 2008, Dieter Nuhr wrote an article for Focus Online explaining why he never became a teacher. Unfortunately, the reason he provided is quite disturbing.
07.13.2026, 12:4907.13.2026, 12:49
Dieter Nuhr studied education but never actually taught. Whether he would have made a good teacher is uncertain—he admits as much himself. In his Focus commentary, he claimed he likely would have conducted a “funny class,” but that shouldn’t be the primary role of a teacher.
Why Dieter Nuhr Chose Not to Teach
The reason he didn’t pursue teaching? The female students.
“I entered the classroom and found the girls from the back row right up front, all in white blouses, open to their navels, smiling and well-developed. In that moment, I knew: This profession will bring you legal problems. That was my last lesson.”
Dieter Nuhr in a comment on focus.de
A Disturbing Perspective
Let’s take a moment to unpack this: A 24-year-old man stands in front of a classroom of minors—whether the students are 20 years old or not, there is an inherent power imbalance. What Nuhr takes away from this lesson is not an educational insight or a reflection on responsibility, but instead the fear that the presence of girls could make him a potential criminal. And he openly writes this down, as if it were humorous.
Reality vs. Fantasy
The question naturally arises: What did this scenario really look like? Nuhr’s descriptions feel less like memories and more like projections of his desires. How many students actually enter a classroom with blouses unbuttoned to their navels, smiling expectantly at an intern?
The reality in classrooms differs. What Nuhr describes is not a visit to a classroom; it sounds more like a fantasy projection.
What This Text Reveals About Dieter Nuhr
The alarming part isn’t just the text itself; it’s the fact that it was published. Why was there no one who rejected Nuhr’s commentary and said, “No, we can’t publish this”? Or at least someone who responded to it back in 2008? It’s chilling to consider that 18 years ago, there was no public outcry about what was deemed an innocent anecdote about a career path that didn’t materialize.
Nothing in Nuhr’s remarks is harmless. Here is a man who perceives female students as a sexual threat to his own legal safety. By making such statements, he also legitimizes the question of “What were you wearing?” as a pretext for aggression, sensationalizing white blouses left unbuttoned.
A Pattern of Shifting Blame
Those familiar with Nuhr’s later controversial statements regarding femicide and women’s choices in relationships would find this old commentary unsurprising. It reveals a consistent pattern: the responsibility always lies elsewhere—be it with the outfit, the decision of whom to sleep with, or the girls at the back of the class.
Dieter Nuhr has not changed; he has merely gained a larger platform.
