– Why are you now apologizing for the criticism of how the researchers worded themselves? – From what we see, there has been a big debate, and I have reflected. The debate that has followed my post, it is justified. My intention was to emphasize the need for a good debate climate, but my statements were instead perceived as trying to limit freedom of expression at NTNU. That is why I have apologized for criticizing the words that the researchers used. They are, of course, fully entitled to formulate themselves in the way they think is best. – Why did you send your reader’s entry to Norsk industri before you sent it to Dagens Næringsliv? – I wanted to inform director (Knut, journ. note) Sunde about what I covered in my post, before it went to print. Simply. And then I also wanted to make sure that I had understood the main gist of the Rystad report, which was not available at the time. So that it was correctly formulated in relation to the assessments they had made. – That does not explain why you sent your reader’s post to Norsk industri, so that they could read through and make any comments before you, as rector of Norway’s largest university, sent it to Dagens Næringsliv? – Yes, as I said: I wanted to inform Sunde. As can be seen from part of what has been published, in this process I have also had some conversations and some SMS exchanges with Knut Sunde. Therefore, I wanted to inform him of what I had covered in the post before it went to print. – But why did you see it as necessary to put it in a way for proofreading at Norsk Industri, before sending it on to Dagens Næringsliv? – It was not proofreading. I wanted, as I have already said, to inform him of what I raised in the post. There have been questions about whether I have felt pressured in relation to this. I do not have that. Given the situation, I wanted to inform you that it was coming. And then I should also have informed the two researchers that it was coming. – Jonas Nøland says that in the days after your outburst he was afraid that he would say the wrong word in his contact with the media. What is your comment on that? – Yes, it is regrettable that he has felt that way. As I said, I have not intended to limit the freedom of expression of my employees. I have also invited both Jonas Nøland and Martin Nødland Hjelmeland to a meeting. We haven’t had that yet, but I’m looking forward to a chat with them. – Nøland says that your role as rector is to defend the researchers’ right to say what they think. He feels that you did not do that, when instead you have contact with powerful, money-rich interests. How would you comment on that? – NTNU collaborates with many actors in working life. An absolute prerequisite in this collaboration is that the parties must act independently. We have a cooperation agreement with NHO, and it is normal that we keep each other informed when the other party is mentioned in each other’s media affairs. The researchers have the right to say what they think, my intention was to encourage a constructive tone in the debate. It is particularly important in debates about controversial topics. So it is true that I had contact with NHO before the article was published in DN, but I was not pressured to write the reader’s article. It was written on my own initiative. I look forward to clarifying this misunderstanding when I meet the two researchers. – What is your comment on one of your employees feeling stabbed in the back? – Yes, as I said, I’m sorry that I criticized the words that the researchers used. They have every right to express themselves in the way they think is best. My post was intended to emphasize the need for a good debate climate. – How can there be a good climate for debate if the principal steps in and has an opinion about what her own employees should say, and how they should express themselves in the media? – Yes, as I said, it was not my intention for it to turn out that way, and I can see that this has turned out to be unfortunate. That is why I have also apologized here. There should be an academic debate, and there has been a discussion about the extent to which a headmaster should make a statement. It could certainly have been done in a completely different way. – Martin N. Hjelmeland says he struggled to sleep after reading the SMS contact you have had with people from NHO and Norwegian industry. What do you think about it? – No, it’s not good, not good at all. We can talk about it when we meet. – He also says that it may appear that you have run errands for interest organizations in the important debate about energy and nuclear power. What do you say to that? – I take note of what he says. And then I will talk to him about it when I meet him. – One of the board members on the board at NTNU, Aksel Tjora, says that the fact that you engage in dialogue with actors in the industry instead of standing up for the employees at NTNU violates all possible expectations of what a rector should do in such a situation. What is your comment? – I take note of what the board member says, and then the board will hold an extraordinary meeting. – Why do you engage in dialogue with players in the industry before you stand up for your own employees and their right to say what they think? – Norsk Industri contacted me because they reacted to the use of words. I understand that, and I wanted to clarify that the wording, and the form in the case in DN, was at the expense of the researchers. I could certainly have done it in a different way. – Then I just want to clarify that NTNU collaborates with many players in working life. An absolute prerequisite in that cooperation is that the parties must act independently. It is absolutely correct that you have pointed out that I have been in contact with NHO before the post. But I would like to be allowed to specify that it neither affected my writing nor what I wrote. – Jon Olaf Olaussen says that the very most basic thing for a rector at a university is to have control over academic freedom of expression. She shows quite clearly that she doesn’t have that, and she can’t be wrong about that, he says. What is your comment? – I note that Olaussen says that. Then I made a mistake, and then one learns from one’s mistakes, quite simply. – Olaussen says that you are helping to weaken people’s trust in the universities by meddling in how your own employees should express themselves. What is your comment? – No, I have no comment on that. – He thinks you should resign, have you considered that? – As I said, we will have an extraordinary board meeting. I am an employed principal. I am employed as long as the board has confidence in me, so it is up to the board to assess. – Do you think they should have confidence in you? – I will not speculate on that. – What does academic freedom of expression mean to you? – Academic freedom of expression for me means that one should be able to speak freely about various academic issues, based on one’s academic background. – According to Universitetsavisa, you wrote in a message thread with Knut Sunde in Norsk Industri that “academic freedom of expression and the understanding of this is part of the challenge”. What do you mean? – I understand what you are asking. What I wanted to emphasize was to have a good debate climate based on professional assessments and perspectives. And then I have also been reprimanded in that way afterwards. I take that to heart. – When you write that academic freedom of expression is part of the challenge? What do you mean? – What I mean by that is that when you have academic freedom of expression, it must be scientifically based. I can’t say anything other than that. Academic freedom of expression is a basis for the activities of a university. – How is your writing a challenge? – No, there is no challenge, I say. It’s not that. I understand that it can be understood like that, that wording. But academic freedom of expression is about us being able to have good academic debates and freedom of expression based on an academic discussion. Of course we should have that, and that’s no problem. – What is the problem, or the challenge, in this context? – No, it is not a challenge. And then you have to read it in the light of what I have said elsewhere about that matter. This case has contributed to a lot of discussion, and that discussion has been important and right after this, and I have regretted how this has turned out. I also hope that one can respect that. In an e-mail on Sunday evening, she adds: – It was meant as a clarification to Sunde, we cannot use the same regulations as Norsk Industri at an academic institution. – Just a few days before all this happened, you signed a new cooperation agreement with NHO. How has that cooperation and that signature shaped your handling of this matter? – It has nothing to do with this case. – Is this communication with external actors regarding questions about own employees an isolated case, or is it part of an unculture? – Single case.
ttn-69
NTNU employees received public criticism from rector Anne Borg – feel stabbed in the back – news Trøndelag – Local news, TV and radio
