By Dou in Germancoursebook —

Hamid's Glow-Up and Sloppy Terms: What the Publisher Said

"after feedback from our editorial team, we can understand your concerns, but we do not share the same view that a text about personal plans in a textbook at B1/B2 level should also include the topic of the difficulties faced by migrants in Germany. "

Context

After raising concerns about how a migration story is represented in the textbook, I wrote to the publisher. You can find my full original message here: Hamid's story and the politics of gratitude

Below is the reply from the publisher, followed by my reflections on each part. Later I spotted a second issue—wrong use of migration terms in a multiple-choice question—and wrote again, linking back to this first exchange.

Email from the Publisher (1 February 2025)

From: Publisher's Representative
Date: 1 Feb. 2025, 11:28 MEZ

after feedback from our editorial team, we can understand your concerns, but we do not share the same view that a text about personal plans in a textbook at B1/B2 level should also include the topic of the difficulties faced by migrants in Germany.
We have to consider that a complete, sociologically differentiated view of a topic cannot be expected in every text in a textbook for German as a foreign language.

I actually agree with this. Because we never get the full picture, every word is a choice about how to show immigration and Germany. That’s why editorial choices matter so much, especially when completeness isn’t possible.

It may be the case that a small text like this influences the learners’ perception of Germany to some extent. This is why we generally endeavour to remain realistic in our texts.

So those experiences I mentioned—Hanau, discrimination in housing and hiring—don’t count as “realistic” for them.

However, we cannot see that Germany is overly idealised in this text.

I believe I showed clearly why the story idealises. They disagree, but instead of saying, “these examples don’t represent migration in Germany,” they just insist there’s no idealisation, without addressing my examples.

We explicitly mention bureaucratic hurdles and that Hamid still has some difficulties.

This feels like a very simple idea of “balance”: mention one negative point and suddenly the text becomes neutral. Bureaucracy critiques are safe—they appear in many German critiques—so immigrants get a pass to complain here while deeper issues like racism are ignored.

Nevertheless, we will consider whether to take out Hamid’s fleeing experiences in the last paragraph of the text.

This is a classic surface-level compromise. The main story stays the same—Germany is where he can finally live freely—but they might remove one detail to seem accommodating.

Surely the text can be an input for a discussion in the course, in which different perspectives can be expressed. Providing such input is also the task of a textbook, even if the discussion topic is not explicitly mentioned on the page.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Kundenservice

I like the discussion idea—that’s what I’m doing. But it shifts responsibility to teachers and learners.

Second Issue: Terminology Problem

Later, I found another issue and wrote again. This time in a multiple choice question they used Migrationshintergrund and Ausländeranteil interchangeably or as synonymous:

22 May 2025, 16:28 MESZ

Dear Publisher,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to raise a concern regarding the textbook XXX, specifically the content on pages XXX–XXX. In the reading comprehension exercise in Lesen Teil 4, there is a section discussing the distribution of the Sprachförderkoffer in kindergartens with a high percentage of children with a Migrationshintergrund. However, in the corresponding multiple-choice question (question 15), the term Ausländeranteil is presented as the correct answer for this context.

As you will be aware, Migrationshintergrund and Ausländeranteil are not equivalent concepts in German official terminology and social research. The former includes both citizens and non-citizens with a migration background, while the latter refers exclusively to non-citizens. Conflating these two terms not only risks factual inaccuracy but also reinforces problematic assumptions about identity and belonging in Germany — which is especially troubling in a textbook intended for integration and vocational language courses.

Given the importance of accurate and socially responsible language in educational materials, particularly in contexts dealing with migration and integration, I urge you to review this section and consider a revision in future editions.

[...]

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,
Dr. Me

Publisher’s Replies

23 May 2025, 14:23 MESZ

Dear Dr. Me,
Thank you for your message.
Please send us the ISBN from the book, so that we can check it for you.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Kundenservice

3 July 2025, 13:55 MESZ

Dear Dr. Me,
Please excuse the late response.
The responsible editorial department will review your comments and the facts and correct the place in the book if necessary.
Thank you for your understanding.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Kundenservice

My Reply

6 June 2025, 10:22 MESZ

Thank you for your reply. The ISBN of the book is XXX-X-XX-XXXX-X.
As a small note, considering the quality of OCR and text recognition technologies nowadays, it might also be helpful for publishers to keep searchable digital records of their publications for easier reference in such cases.

Smart-assness as a venting strategy :)

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Me

END OF THE EMAIL EXCHANGE

Hamid's clean story and the term mix-up show the same pattern: textbooks skip migration's tough side, publishers nod and promise small changes but miss the bigger picture. Both times, words shape how newcomers see Germany.

Follow