The University of Zurich’s Faculty of Law has decided against revoking the doctoral degree of SVP National Councilor Nina Fehr Düsel, despite finding evidence of “scientific misconduct” and “moderate fault” in her dissertation. While Fehr Düsel characterized the findings as “minor errors in the footnotes,” official university documents describe a more extensive pattern of academic irregularities, including 121 plagiarized sentences and a nearly identical reproduction of an entire sub-chapter on English law.
Did You Know? The University of Zurich’s own regulations state that the unauthorized use of others’ texts without citation constitutes plagiarism and that such dissertations are to be rejected as insufficient.
Findings of the Academic Investigation
The university’s decision follows a formal review process that contradicted Fehr Düsel’s public characterization of the case. External experts Professor Benjamin Schindler and Christina Müller of the University of St. Gallen identified 17 clear instances of plagiarism and 44 additional text passages that violated standards of good scientific practice. Their 22-page report, accompanied by 130 pages of appendices, concluded that the nature and distribution of these plagiarized passages demonstrated an “intent to deceive.”
The scale of the issue was identified across 12.3 pages of the dissertation. One specific sub-chapter regarding English law reached a 94.6 percent overlap with existing literature. Previously, independent plagiarism expert Stefan Weber had flagged 31 cases of serious plagiarism and multiple false citations, suggesting that the author had “practically continuously rewritten” existing work with little original contribution.
Reasons Behind the Decision
On April 1, 2026, the Faculty of Law opened a formal procedure to consider title revocation but ultimately opted against it. The faculty cited a need to balance “constitutional action” with “proportionality.” Because Fehr Düsel is not an employee of the University of Zurich, the institution stated that no personal or disciplinary measures could be taken beyond the academic review.
Expert Insight: The decision highlights a significant tension in academic governance. By choosing not to revoke the title, the faculty avoided a direct confrontation with the political establishment, mirroring historical sensitivities seen in previous institutional controversies at the University of Zurich. This result raises questions about whether academic rigor is applied consistently when high-profile political figures are involved.
What May Happen Next
The resolution of this process appears to clear the way for Nina Fehr Düsel to pursue her stated interest in a candidacy for the Council of States. As the university has officially closed the investigation, there are no immediate formal avenues for further academic sanction. However, the discrepancy between the faculty’s public justification—which acknowledged “considerable deficiencies”—and its decision to retain the degree may continue to prompt scrutiny regarding the university’s internal standards for dissertation oversight.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the university find in the dissertation?
The university identified “scientific misconduct” and “moderate fault,” including 121 sentences and 44 marginal notes that were plagiarized, as well as a sub-chapter on English law that was 94.6 percent plagiarized.
Why did the university decide not to revoke the title?
The Faculty of Law concluded that they should forgo revocation after weighing “constitutional action” against the principle of “proportionality.”
How did Nina Fehr Düsel respond to the findings?
Fehr Düsel stated that the work was thoroughly investigated and that the findings amounted to only “minor errors in the footnotes,” adding that she considers the matter closed.
How should academic institutions balance the integrity of their doctoral degrees with the political influence of their graduates?
