I februar 2024 har Europa-Parlamentet udgivet en rapport om den akademiske friheds tilstand i EU. Rapporten kan tilgås i dette link: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2024/757798/EPRS_STU(2024)757798_EN.pdf
Rapporten er meget kompakt, både i sprog og opsætning. Derfor har jeg tilladt mig at kopiere hele afsnittet om Danmark, hvor jeg har indsat en række indryk og så videre, så teksten fremstår mere tilgængelig. Teksten er taget fra rapportens s. 137-147 og kan tilgås nedenfor.
Institutleder Claus Holms overraskende fyring af undertegnede i december 2023 gennemgås forholdsvist grundigt på s. 141 (afsnit 4.3.2). Sagen fremføres som det helt centrale eksempel på universitetsledelsernes problemer med forskningsfrihed under 2003-lovens regime.
I forbindelse med omtalen af fyringssagen nævnes en af de tre store underskriftsindsamlinger, der støttede mig (Erik Schmidt 2022), samt et offentlig brev fra en række DPU-ansatte, der støttede Claus Holm (Jeppe Bundsgaard 2022). Denne uenighed får rapportens forfattere til at slå lidt ud og konkludere, at “this illustrates the complexity of the relationship between cutback operations and academic freedom.”.
Deri tager forfatterne dog fejl. Støttebrevet til Holm var i realiteten støtte til ledelsens opgør med den akademiske frihed. Det har jeg argumenteret for i bogen ”Universitetet og dets fjender”, som udkom i februar 2024. Der er altså ingen ”kompleksitet”, men snarere et samlet angreb på universitetets ånd, som altså blev understøttet af en gruppe forskere, hvis faglige synspunkter i store træk støttes af Holms meget kontroversielle konkurrencestatsideologi. Man kan tilgå alle sagens dokumenter og indlæg, herunder de to breve, i dette link: http://www.thomasaastruproemer.dk/indlaeg-og-artikler-om-afskedigelse-paa-dpu.html
Men jeg er naturligvis glad for, at min sag fremføres i denne sammenhæng.
Den europæiske rapport omtaler også andre af de sidste par års episoder, herunder Henrik Dahls kritik af den dygtige mellemøstforsker og formidler, Jakob Skovgaard-Petersen, som endda blev fremført under forskningsfrihedens banner, samt Københavns Universitets barokke behandling af litteraturhistorikeren, Marianne Stidsen, som efterfølgende blev pure frikendt for plagiat. Dertil kommer sagen mod Stig Markager og flere andre kritisable episoder. Der er i øvrigt påfaldende mange sager fra Aarhus Universitet.
Kapitlet om Danmark i den europæiske rapport tager udgangspunkt i dels et europæisk pilotstudie og dels en udgivelse fra Danmarks Forsknings- og innovationspolitiske Råd fra foråret 2023, hvor 2003-lovens problematiske effekter drøftes udførligt. Derfor spiller den meget kritiserede universitetslov fra 2003 også en stor rolle i den europæiske rapport.
DFiR’s rapport fra 2023 kan tilgås her: https://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/rad-og-udvalg/danmarks-forsknings-og-innovationspolitiske-rad/publikationer/publikationer-fra-danmarks-forsknings-og-innovationspolitiske-rad/universiteter-for-fremtiden18c9378d0b79410bae10d766497f8cf8
Der er flere links om det europæiske initiativ her:
- Om den bagvedliggende tænketank: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/da/document/EPRS_STU(2024)757798
- Mere om den europæiske monitorering af forskningsfrihed: https://epthinktank.eu/2024/02/05/academic-freedom-a-fundamental-value-for-europe/
Jeg kan ikke helt gennemskue, hvem der konkret står bag artiklen om den danske situation. Hvis nogen ved det, må de gerne skrive til mig.
Nedenfor følger så det fulde kapitel om Danmark fra den europæiske rapport i en forhåbentlig mere læseværdig opsætning, end originalen kan tilbyde. Alle fremhævninger er mine egne:
4.3. Denmark
In the pilot study commissioned by the European Parliament STOA Panel on the State of play of academic freedom in the EU Member States (Maassen, Martinsen, Elken, Jungblut, & Lackner, 2023) several concerns about de facto academic freedom in Denmark had been identified.
This included worries about the impact of changes in university governance and the public funding arrangements on academic freedom and the democratic culture within academia. The discourse tied to these concerns painted a picture of an academic climate where many academics felt marginalised in institutional governance, while also being susceptible to interference in their academic work from institutional leadership and management and external actors, especially from politics and the private sector.
Furthermore, the academic climate was seen as being negatively influenced by the growing use of social media by civil groups and individual citizens in unfounded criticism of, if not direct attacks on, individual academics and academic positions and points of view.
In summary, the findings indicated that four out of the five sources of threats to academic freedom identified and used in this pilot study apply to the situation in Denmark.
These sources of threats include threats from government and politics, institutional leadership and management, civil society, and private sector actors. The pilot study did not find evidence for any serious cases of academic intolerance affecting academic freedom.
It should be mentioned that several of the threats identified in the Danish discourse have been linked to the 2003 University Autonomy Law, which is regarded as a major cause for various of the negative developments with respect to academic freedom in Danish academia.
Matters related to government and politics have played a significant part in the Danish debates on academic freedom. As indicated, the 2003 Law was found to form the basis for several points of contention, amongst other things, when it comes to the possible effects of the introduction and development of executive powers in the leadership structure on the conditions under which academic freedom is exercised.
Additional political pressure occurred in 2021, when two members of parliament submitted a question to the then minister asking him whether he agreed that “there are problems with excessive activism in certain research environments in the humanities and social sciences at the expense of scientific virtues.”
Furthermore, the Minister was asked whether he agreed that “such tendencies require action similar to the initiative of the French government which has started a formal examination of the extent of the problem.”
It is rather remarkable that we see this reference to another EU Member State, in the sense of politicians in one EU Member State referring to the measures taken by a government in another Member State in political debates on academic freedom, given the controversial nature of the debates and the measures by the government in question (see chapter on France in this report).
As a response to the question, parliament adapted a motion “on excessive activism in certain research environments” expressing its expectation that “university leaders continuously ensure that ensure that the self-regulation of scientific practice works.” The motion states that “academic self-regulation is the basic principle of the free university” but called on universities to make sure that “politics is not disguised as science.”
Furthermore, the motion acknowledges that lawmakers should not control what is researched but at the same time declares that parliament is within its rights to “express views on research results.”
While the motion does not mention any disciplines or fields, in the parliamentary debates around the motion, specific fields such as race, migration, gender and post-colonial studies were attacked and characterised as “pseudoscience.” In addition, during the debates leading up to the motion, a professor from the University of Copenhagen, Jacob Skovgaard-Petersen, was mentioned by name and attacked in a speech given from the official lectern in the parliament. This can be regarded as a direct interference of politics with academic freedom.
The responses from the academic community to the motion was generally critical. Jesper Langergaard, director of Universities Denmark, stated, for example, that “On the one hand, the parliament recognizes the ability of the scientific system to regulate itself. On the other hand, they want to remind the universities of that responsibility. It doesn’t make sense. Danish universities are concerned about what appears to be a political campaign against certain areas of research. The consequence is that some researchers will withdraw from the public debate, and that is not good either for democracy or for freedom of research” (Matthews, 2021).
Furthermore, in response to the motion an open letter was drafted by Danish academics, heavily criticizing the motion and the precedent set by political intervention in the responsibility of the academic community to guard academic freedom. The letter found widespread support in the Danish and international academic community[1].
Regarding the impact on academic freedom of changes in university leadership and management, the pilot study indicated that the influence and labour conditions of academics are generally seen to have been changed in the context of the executive leadership structure that has emerged since 2003. While there was general agreement that there was a need for reforming the then university governance structure (The Danish University and Property Agency, 2009), the 2003 University Autonomy Law is argued to have caused an imbalance between executive leadership principles and academic self-governance (see, e.g. Wright et al., 2020).
The universities currently have a unitary board structure with non-elected internal members and an appointed external majority of representatives. While the executive and managerial roles of the board have been enhanced, the room for academic self-governance and co-determination has been reduced, in part due to the specific nature of the board’s composition. Other concerns amongst academics include mistrust in institutional leadership and their ability to represent academic interests, fear of criticizing leadership and management, and layoff anxiety.
Concerns were raised around hate and threats directed at academics associated with research fields dealing with controversial topics. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a recent example of academics being exposed to attacks from civil society following disagreement among certain civil groups with political decisions on the handling of the pandemic and the involvement of academic experts in providing the knowledge basis for these decisions. In some cases, the involved academics have withdrawn from public debate.
Finally, the growing reliance of academic researchers on external funding was argued to have led to several cases of undue pressure from leading members of funding organizations and private sector funders to influence the research results.
In recent Danish public debates on academic freedom, the impact of the University Autonomy Law of 2003 continues to attract attention.
Many participants in the debates blame the 2003 Law for introducing changes in university governance that have weakened the conditions for exercising academic freedom. These changes are argued to incorporate a strengthening of executive dimensions and external influence in university governance at the expense of the principle of self-governance, that is, the involvement of academics and students in institutional decision-making (see, for example, Degn and Sørensen, 2014).
This continuous attention on the impact of the 2003 Law is also visible in the papers on threats to aspects of academic freedom published by The Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters (2019; 2021), the initiative of the then Minister of Higher Education and Science to start a dialogue with academics following the “Freedom Letter” (Myklebust, 2022a; Rasmussen, 2022), and the evaluation of the 2003 Law in the second part of 2022 (Baggersgaard, 2022c; Mayoni, 2022a).
A complicating factor in this is that the 2003 Law contained both a general article (2.2) on the protection of the basic conditions of academic freedom, and a more specific article as well (17.2), which has been seen by many academic staff members of the universities as a major symbol of the controversies around the Law, as it gave the institutional leadership the formal power to tell individual staff members which academic tasks to perform.
The report of the evaluation by the Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFiR) was published May 2023 (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a). The report is seen as a comprehensive and unique contribution to debates surrounding academic freedom in that it represents the government’s willingness to further discuss the state of the sector under the 2003
University Autonomy Law, in addition to providing interview and survey data reflecting a number of key issues in previous and ongoing debates.
The current study will introduce some general points using data from DFiR’s report in addition to introducing new cases concerning academic freedom.
4.3.1. Government and politics
The report by DFiR suggests that the current way the government is steering the sector could be detrimental to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The frequency of comprehensive reforms and the subsequent commitment to each reform have been regarded by academic staff, institutional leadership, and other interest groups as distracting and, at times, damaging to the sector (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a, pp. 70-72; 2023b, pp. 10-14, 16).
Depending on how reforms are defined, the sector has gone through between 13 (2023a, p. 71) and 29 (Paulsen, 2022) separate reforms the last 20 years affecting strategy, funding, and restructuring plans for the universities. The implementation strategy of the government has been criticised for being too short-sighted in terms of allowing the reforms time to affect the system before implementing new reforms.
Another criticism has been the “revolving door” situation of Ministers of Higher Education and Science leading to a “zigzag” of agendas and initiatives (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023b, p. 14), a point which has been brought up previously in Danish discourse (Baggersgaard, 2021; Oksen, 2021).
The frequency and diversity of reforms has led to a feeling of reform fatigue among the universities as well as a perception of the government’s close-up steering as outright damaging to the administrative tasks of the institutional boards (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023c, p. 45).
An important issue in the current debates on academic freedom is formed by the changes in the funding of academic research at universities. In the period 2011-2021 the basic public research allocations increased by 14%, while the volume of the external funding of research grew by 53%, resulting in external funding now representing almost 50% of the total volume of research funding at universities.
Recent studies discuss both positive and negative consequences of this change in the balance between basic and external funding. One negative impact highlighted is the risk that universities lose promising, younger researchers due to uncertain funding conditions (Sandborg, 2023).
Another problem is that private foundations, whose investments in university research are growing strongly, do not pay overhead, implying that universities must cover overhead expenses themselves when one of their academic staff acquires a grant from one of these foundations. In this we can also identify the possible threats to academic freedom emerging from the size and scale of the involvement of one or more of these foundations with a specific university, for example, the relations of Novo Nordisk with the University of Copenhagen.
Overall, the changes in the funding of research mean that an increasing proportion of the research carried out is defined by external funding organizations, such as foundations and other private funders, implying that researchers to an increasing degree lose opportunities to define their own research agendas. This is a crucial aspect of decreasing academic freedom.
The developments in this category can be illustrated by a number of cases, the first of which concerns the governmental proposal for a major restructuring of master’s programs, predominantly within the humanities and social sciences (The Government of Denmark, 2022). The reform proposes to introduce one-year degree-granting programs aimed at easing the transition to professional practices by reducing the required time without sacrificing the quality of the education (pp. 18-20).
In practice, as many as 8 out of 10 two-year master’s programs in the humanities and social science might be affected by the reform. Furthermore, universities are required to introduce new highly specialised two-year programs focused on research and technology. The proposal was criticised for being poorly planned, costly, damaging to the existing academic climates at the universities, and the resulting programs being of low quality due to the limited timeframe (Bøttcher, 2023; Kølln, 2023; Myklebust, 2022b).
There are explicit concerns for academic freedom and institutional autonomy by academics and higher education organizations in the country in reference to the narrow frame of the reform constraining the universities’ ability to evaluate and satisfy the demands of the reform on their own terms.
An expert on the humanities as a discipline, Associate Professor Jesper Eckhardt Larsen, argues that the proposed reform follows a historical trend in Denmark of anti-intellectual and anti-academic views on higher education associating the elite with the humanities (Myklebust, 2023).
On 27 June 2023 the government announced an agreement on the proposed reform with four other political parties (Ministry of Education and Research, 2023). The agreement is the result of negotiations between the involved parties and implies that from 2028 on 10% of the master students shall be enrolled in 1¼ year study programmes, with another 10% admitted to a flexible professional master’s programme where the students combine work and study. As part of the reform, the budget for higher education will be increased considerably, while also the number of study places for international students will be increased[2]. The reform has been met with mixed
responses, with, amongst other things, several professional associations being critical (Myklebust 2023b).
Another case of government restructuring of the sector is the recently planned move of study places from the big cities to the smaller districts of Denmark (Ejlertsen et al., 2022). The academic community expressed concern over the initial 10% reduction in study places in the big cities, in reference to a potentially weaker academic climate for students and aspiring academics, as well as the inevitable closing of study programs (Kølln, 2021a, 2021b). The number has since been reduced to 6,4% (Renard, 2022), and the plan now involves a comprehensive evaluation in 2025, following negotiations.
4.3.2. Institutional leadership and management
The practice of academic co-determination at the institutions is perceived as being less than desirable in terms of the involvement and influence of academic staff and students. Besides provisions for the establishment of an academic council and other representative groups among academic staff and students, the law provides no frameworks or guarantees for their involvement in decision-making processes.
Researchers report a number of challenges and barriers to their participation in decision-making processes: a lack of access to or information about ways to influence decision-making (55%), fear of reprimand from leadership following criticism of the latter (50%), low self-efficacy with regards to administrative and executive processes (31-37%), and a perception of the boards’ level of influence limiting the involvement of researchers (63%) (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a, p. 25).
Other perceived barriers relate to a lack of administrative support for academics to engage in executive decision-making, a lack of time, and a lack of recognition by the executive board (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a, pp. 34-35).
While some rectors have stated that the lack of directives in the law allows for
greater freedom enjoyed by the universities to develop their own culture and practices for democratic co-determination (Baggersgaard, 2022b; Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023b, pp. 23-24), universities struggle in practice with realizing desired levels of co-determination and the effective use of representative councils and other channels of communication of the academic staff and students with the university leadership and management[3].
Some researchers have strongly expressed a desire for a revision of the 2003 University Law to include specifications for the degree of and practices surrounding the inclusion of academic staff in decision-making (2022a).
A longstanding criticism of the 2003 University Law is the unitary board structure introducing external and professionalised administrative elements without guarantee for the executive board’s insight into academic processes or influence from academic staff (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023b, pp. 19, 25-26), something which risks damaging the board’s legitimacy among academic staff (2023a, p. 38).
On the other end of the spectrum, representatives from the business and professional spheres prefer current arrangements over more traditional university management that could be found in Denmark pre-2003 as the boards become easier to relate to for cooperation purposes and allow for a university more receptive to political agendas which take the labour market into consideration (Siegumfeldt, 2020).
December 2022, the Danish School of Education (DPU) at the University of Aarhus became entangled in a controversy related to a series of firings following budget cuts at the school. While the cuts were argued to necessitate a reduction of the academic staff, some academics argue that several firings were suspiciously untransparent.
For example, attention was drawn to the firing of a professor, Thomas Aastrup Rømer, who had been critical of the leadership during his 14 years at DPU.
A letter of protest was drafted and signed by 40 Danish academics in support of the professor, describing him as someone with an important voice in Danish educational sciences who has made important contributions to the field (Schmidt, 2022).
At the same time, 31 academic staff members at the DPU drafted a letter dismissing descriptions DPU being a place where research freedom is under pressure without a space for critical voices in the educational sciences (Bundsgaard et al.,2022).
This illustrates the complexity of the relationship between cutback operations and academic freedom.
4.3.3. Academic community
More than 70% of the researchers who work with or consider working with issues that are regarded as controversial from a societal, political, or academic point of view experienced their work as difficult due to the threat of, exposure to, or fear of acts of retribution from society or within academia along with the lack of support from institutional leaders (18% for academic controversies, 12% for political controversies (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a, p. 55).
It is also reflective of academics’ weakened position with regard to job security and their perceived low level of influence relative to institute leaders and the executive board.
Recently, literary historian Marianne Stidsen was accused of plagiarism in parts of her PhD dissertation, something she describes as “an ideologically motivated witch-hunt” (Mayoni, 2022b).
Stidsen resigned from her position at the University of Copenhagen due what she experienced as a hostile environment with colleagues asking her to resign over expressed views critical of the #MeToo movement (Baungaard, 2022; Lindberg & Damm, 2020).
One month after her resignation, the formal committee at the University of Copenhagen, which handles cases of questionable research, dismissed the accusation (Mayoni, 2022b).
Furthermore, there has been a growing interest in discussing “wokeness” [4], identity politics, and ideological activism at universities and in society more broadly. Ongoing debates have adopted narratives which juxtapose “woke” and related concepts with rational thinking and free expression (Lindberg et al., 2023)[5]
In the aftermath of the parliamentary motion on “Excessive activism in certain research environments”, it can be argued that a broader discussion on “woke” further informs the context for debates about academic freedom and free expression at universities.
In a few cases, explicit concern has been expressed for free speech at universities being repressed by outrage-culture and political correctness (Fuglsang, 2022; Højsgaard, 2022). There is also a concern for reducing arguments and efforts in support for academic freedom as a “crusade” against “woke”, identity politics, and critical race theory (Mchangama, 2022).
Related to the woke-debate is a discussion on the Chicago Principles and if similar language should be introduced into law or university bylaws (Friis, 2021; Holtermann, 2022; Lehmann, 2022; J. Petersen, 2022; L. B. Petersen, 2022; Skadegård, 2022). Implied is a discussion on the burden of academic responsibility and whether it should be held by academics and universities or externally by the government.
A (small) survey was conducted on the general population’s attitude towards
identity political viewpoints which found that Danes were by and large not “woke” (Pröschold & Fahrendorff, 2022)[6].
4.3.4. Civil society
The latest debates do not reveal any new specific threats to academic freedom by society beyond the threats mentioned in the 2023 report (Maassen et al 2023). At the same time, there is a continuous concern for the possibility of threats and attacks directed at researchers engaging with socially or politically controversial topics.
4.3.5. Private sector actors
The latest debates do reveal continuous worries about threats to academic freedom by private sector actors, through their potential influence on research proposals and research results. To illustrate the nature of the concerns we will briefly present three relevant cases.
The first case concerns a research project on the impact of beef production on the climate in comparison to other food products, conducted by Aarhus University in collaboration with DTU, funded by the Kvægafgiftsfonden (Cattle Tax Fund), with amongst other representatives from Landbrug & Fødevarer, in the board of the project. The latter is a business organization for agriculture, the food and agro industry.
The controversies around the project’s findings and report have been
referred to as the ‘beef report scandal’ in Denmark[7]. The core of the scandal concerns the originally denied involvement of interest organizations of the agricultural sector in the development and production of a research report, amongst other things, when it comes to the examined climate impact of meat production.
Aarhus University was accused of allowing Landbrug & Fødevarer to write entire paragraphs in the project’s final report (Bahn et al 2019). The representatives from the private sector provided, for example, data and calculations to be included in the report, and decided how the results should be formulated. This is a clear example of an undue interference by the private sector in academic freedom.
The second case concerns a professor at the University of Aarhus, Stiig Markager, who, after he expressed himself about pollution coming from agriculture, was sued in court by an organization representing agro-industrial interests. The University of Aarhus clearly supported him, as expressed in a public letter by the university rector, with the involved dean and head of department (Henriksen, Nielsen, and Andersen, 2019).
In the letter these university leaders stated that, “It is simply unheard
of for an interest organization to try to intimidate a researcher from participating in the public debate by suing him for libel.” Eventually, Professor Markager won the case, but his case was seen as a clear violation of academic freedom.
The third case consists of a conflict around an article in Nature produced by two researchers from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Aarhus University. The conflict attracted a lot of attention in Denmark and beyond[8].
In the article, the two researchers concluded, among other things, that humans perform better than a computer algorithm in a computer game that simulates a complex quantum physics problem. The article caused a great stir, but was also criticised by, among others, three researchers from the same Department as the article’s authors.
The article was later withdrawn on the basis of the criticism and a check of the conclusion, where an error was detected in the article’s data basis, which meant that the conclusion no longer held. The criticism from the authors’ academic colleagues was deemed unacceptable by the then chairman of the Carlsberg Foundation, which had supported one of the article’s authors with a grant of DK 1 million after the article’s publication.
In an email correspondence between the foundation’s chair and the two researchers, which he forwarded to Aarhus University’s rector, the foundation chair called the critics ‘disloyal’ ‘nest skimmers’ and ‘baboons’, and he called for a gag order.
Strikingly, the dean of the faculty in question interfered in the debate by writing to the foundation chair that he was indeed inclined to give the critical researchers a gag order until they would change their mind.
While both the foundation chair and the dean have since apologized for their statements, the case shows, amongst other things, that private sector funders can put pressure on academics to refrain from academic criticism they do not like (Andersen, 2021; Vestergaard and Andersen, 2021), which is a form of undue violation of the academic freedom of expression.
4.3.6. Summary of findings
A considerable part of the current debates about, and worries with respect to, academic freedom in Denmark is linked to the continuous impact of the 2003 University Autonomy Law and the multiple sector reforms introduced since.
The evaluation of the 2003 law by DFiR argues that the law has succeeded in strengthening the universities’ focus on society, but at the cost of a deteriorating democratic culture and possible direct and indirect threats to academic freedom (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a; Schou Drivsholm, 2023).
The latter is visible in some of the findings of the evaluation, for example, in the number of academics that feel restricted in their freedom of expression.
Furthermore, changes in the basic conditions for academic freedom in the form of limitations to self-governance and co-determination, worsening labour conditions, and alterations in the public funding, are seen to possibly affect the opportunities of academics to follow their own research and teaching agendas negatively (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a).
Of relevance is that the report does not identify the 2003 Law as the problem when it comes to the worries with respect to academic freedom. Rather, it argues that the universities’ boards and leaders have to do more to strengthen the democratic culture and academic freedom at their institutions. This, the report argues, should be possible within the current governance- and funding framework conditions for the universities (Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd, 2023a, p. 9).
While the diagnosis of the impact of the 2003 law presented in the DFiR report is generally acknowledged, there is some criticism of the recommendations the report presents, in the sense that the recommendations are seen by some as ‘toothless,’ and do not deal with the main causes of the current imbalance between executive and democratic principles in university governance (Løkeland-Stai, 2023).
In this, the opinions are divided between those stakeholders who argue that solutions for the current problems in university governance, including the threats to academic
freedom, can be developed within the current University Law, while others argue that the fundamental changes that are needed to address the problems effectively require a new University Law (Løkeland-Stai, 2023).
All in all, the Danish case is characterized by specific features, which together form the backdrop for a continuous debate on possible and real threats to academic freedom. This concerns both direct threats to the basic dimensions of academic freedom, as well as major worries about the short term and long-term impacts on academic freedom of changes in its basic conditions. In the current political and legal university landscape, it looks as if there is broad agreement on the nature of these threats, but a lack of agreement on how to address them most effectively.
4.3.7. Resources
Baggersgaard, C. (2021). “Jesper Petersen er den niende videnskabsminister på ti år” https://www.forskerforum.dk/magasinet/2021/345/jesper-petersen-
er-den-niende-videnskabsminister-paa-ti-aar
Baggersgaard, C. (2022a). “Forskere vil høres – kræver ny universitetslov med reel medbestemmelse”. https://www.forskerforum.dk/magasinet/2022/forskerforum-nr-7-2022/forskere-vil-hoeres-kraever-ny-universitetslov-med-reel-medbestemmelse
Baggersgaard, C. (2022b). ”Rektorer: Intet i loven står i vejen for medinddragelse”. https://www.forskerforum.dk/magasinet/2022/forskerforum-nr-7-
2022/rektorer-intet-i-loven-staar-i-vejen-for-medinddragelse
Baggersgaard, C. (2022c). ”Evaluering af udskældt universitetslov skudt i gang”
Baungaard, A. (2022). ”#Metoo-kritisk forfatter blev beskyldt for plagiat. Nu har Københavns Universitet fældet dom” https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/metoo-kritisk-forfatter-blev-beskyldt-for-plagiat-nu-har-koebenhavns
Bundsgaard et al., J. (2022). “Debat: Kollega-modsvar i debatten om afskedigelser på DPU” https://www.folkeskolen.dk/dpu/debat-kollega-modsvar-i-
debatten-om-afskedigelser-pa-dpu/4689601
Bøttcher, T. (2023). ”Derfor kan uddannelsesreform sende humaniorafag ud på ’dødskørsel’”, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2023/marts/derfor-kan-uddannelsesreform-sende-humaniorafag-ud-i-doedskoersel
Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd. (2023a). ”Universiteter for fremtiden: Tyve år med universitetsloven – Hovedrapport”.
Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd. (2023b). ”Universiteter for fremtiden: Tyve år med universitetsloven – Samtalebog”.
Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd. (2023c). ”Baggrundsrapport: Universiteter for fremtiden – surveyresultater”.
Ejlertsen, M., Kølln, T., & Baggersgaard, C. (2022). ”Overblik: Sådan bliver uddannelserne ramt af
udflytningsplanen”, https://www.forskerforum.dk/aktuelt/2022/marts/overblik-saadan-bliver-uddannelserne-ramt-af-udflytningsplanen.
Friis, R. (2021). ”Retsfilosof: Derfor har universiteterne brug for Chicago-principperne”, https://uniavisen.dk/retsfilosof-derfor-har-universiteterne-brug-for-chicago-principperne/”
Fuglsang, J. (2022). ”Tænketank: Ytringsfrihed på danske universiteter skraber bunden i Norden”.
https://politiken.dk/indland/uddannelse/art8961567/Ytringsfrihed-p%C3%A5-danske-universiteter-skraber-bunden-i-Norden
Holtermann, J. V. H. (2022). ”Lektor: Vi skal lære vores studerende at anerkende ‘højst ubekvemme kendsgerninger’”, https://politiken.dk/debat/art8762233/Vi-skal-l%C3%A6re-vores-studerende-at-anerkende-h%C3%B8jst-ubekvemme-kendsgerninger
Højsgaard, L. (2022). ”Trods politisk pres: Universiteter afviser, at krænkelseskultur er et reelt problem”, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2022/maj/trods-politisk-pres-universiteter-afviser-at-kraenkelseskultur-er-et-reelt-problem
Kølln, T. (2021a). ”Overblik: Det ved vi om regeringens udflytning af uddannelser”, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2021/maj/overblik-det-ved-vi-om-regeringens-plan-for-udflytning-af-uddannelser
Kølln, T. (2021b). ”DM: Regeringen har de rette intentioner, men den forkerte metode”, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2021/maj/dm-regeringen-har-de-rette-intentioner-men-den-forkerte-metode
Kølln, T. (2023). ”Efter regeringens udspil: “Der er noget bullshit bingo over det””, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2023/marts/efter-regeringens-udspil-der-er-noget-bullshit-bingo-over-det
Lehmann, C. (2022). ”Rektor: Danske universiteter bør indføre Chicago-principperne før det er for sent”, https://www.altinget.dk/forskning/artikel/rektor-danske-universiteter-boer-indfoere-chicago-principperne-foer-det-er-for-sent
Lindberg, K., & Damm, S. J. (2020). ”Det danske akademi splilttes af strid om medlems udtalelser”, https://www.berlingske.dk/aok/det-danske-akademi-splittes-
af-strid-om-medlems-udtalelser-det-er-helt-uhoert
Lindberg, K., Dreyer, P., & Alsen, M. (2023). ”Biblioteksforsker siger ja til kurser i ‘hvidhed’, men: “Vi er nødt til at fastholde, at hvide også kan skrive om sorte””, https://www.berlingske.dk/kultur/biblioteksforsker-siger-ja-til-kurser-i-hvidhed-men-vi-er-noedt-til-at
Maassen, P., Martinsen, D., Elken, M., Jungblut, J., & Lackner, E. (2023). ”State of play of academic freedom in the EU member states – Overview of de facto trends and developments. European Parliament”, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/en/document/EPRS_STU(2023)740231
Matthews, D. (2021). “Danish academics fear for freedom after MPs condemn ‘activism’”, retrieved from Times Higher Education: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/danish-academics-fear-freedom-after-mps-condemn-activism
Mayoni, S. (2022a). “Evaluering af Universitetsloven på vej”, https://uniavisen.dk/revision-af-universitetsloven-kan-vaere-paa-vej/
Mayoni, S. (2022b). ”Praksisudvalg frikender Marianne Stidsen for plagiat”, https://uniavisen.dk/praksisudvalg-frikender-marianne-stidsen-for-plagiat/
Mchangama, J. (2022). ”Kampen for akademisk frihed risikerer at blive til en kamp mod wokisme og identitetspolitik for politikere på udkig efter et korstog”, https://www.berlingske.dk/kommentatorer/kampen-for-akademisk-frihed-risikerer-at-blive-til-en-kamp-mod
Myklebust, J.P. (2021). ”Uproar as MPs claim university research is ‘politicised’”. Retrieved from University World News: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210610103648390
Myklebust, J. P. (2022a). “Minister reaches out to scientists over freedom concerns”,
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220819115643640
Myklebust, J. P. (2022b). “Scepticism over government’s one-year masters degree plan”,
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221006151508259
Myklebust, J. P. (2023). “University masters degree reforms: Practical or political?”,
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230414104707408
Oksen, N. S. (2021). “Uddannelsessektoren: Den ellevte uddannelses- og forskningsminister på tolv år er bekymrende”, https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/uddannelsessektoren-den-ellevte-uddannelses-og-forskningsminister-paa-tolv-aar-er-bekymrende
Paulsen, L. S. (2022). ”29 reformer på 20 år: Universiteterne mangler en reformpause”, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2022/april/29-reformer-
paa-20-aar-universiteterne-mangler-en-reformpause
Petersen, J. (2022). ”Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 196”, Folketinget, Retrieved June 30, from
https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/almdel/ufu/spm/196/svar/1897761/2602926.pdf
Petersen, L. B. (2022). ”Skal chicagoprincipperne nedfældes som lov på danske universiteter? nej, siger talerne til høring i folketinget”, https://omnibus.au.dk/arkiv/vis/artikel/skal-chicagoprincipperne-nedfaeldes-som-lov-paa-danske-universiteter-nej-siger-talerne-til-hoering-i-folketinget
Pröschold, V., & Fahrendorff, R. (2022). ”Danskerne er ikke så ”woke”, som forskerne forventede“, https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/danmark/danskerne-er-ikke-
saa-woke-som-forskerne-forventede
Rasmussen, D. M. (2022). ”Minister inviterer utilfredse forskere til dialogmøde”. https://uniavisen.dk/ministeren-inviterer-utilfredse-forskere-til-
dialogmoede/
Renard, T. Z. (2022). ”Aftale om udflytning af studiepladser på plads”, https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/aftale-om-udflytning-af-studiepladser-paa-plads
Schmidt, E. (2022). ”Debat: Protest mod DPU’s varsel om fyring af lektor Thomas Aastrup Rømer”, https://www.folkeskolen.dk/dpu/debat-protest-mod-dpus-varsel-om-fyring-af-lektor-thomas-aastrup-romer/4690136
Schultz, M., Schiøtt, B., Dyre, J., Heiberg, M. R., Wæver, O., & Bjørnholm, T. (2019). ”Fri Forskning” [White paper].
Siegumfeldt, P. (2020). “Arbejdsgiverne: Universitetsloven har gjort universiteterne stærkere”, https://www.akademikerbladet.dk/aktuelt/2020/februar/universitetsloven-har-gjort-universiteterne-staerkere
Skadegård, M. C. (2022). ”Vi risikerer ytringsmagt – ikke ytringsfrihed – med Chicago-principperne”, https://www.berlingske.dk/kommentatorer/vi-risikerer-ytringsmagt-ikke-ytringsfrihed-med-chicago-principperne
The Government of Denmark. (2022). ”Danmark kan mere III”.
Wiedemann, K. (2022). ”Klasseperspektivet mangler i woke-debatten, der føres af den privilegerede middelklasse”, https://www.information.dk/debat/2022/04/klasseperspektivet-mangler-woke-debatten-foeres-privilegerede-middelklasse
Wæver, O., Sinskjær, T., Dyre, J., Ditlevsen, S., Ryberg, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2021). ”Ledelse & styring af danske universiteter – i international sammenligning” [White paper].
Noter:
[1] See e.g. Myklebust (2021).
[2] For a more comprehensive overview of the main features of the reform, see: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/her-er-
regeringens-uddannelsesreform-kortere-kandidatuddannelser-faerre-bachelorer-og-nyt-kandidatudvalg.
[3] For a more comprehensive overview of the main features of the reform, see: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/her-er-
regeringens-uddannelsesreform-kortere-kandidatuddannelser-faerre-bachelorer-og-nyt-kandidatudvalg.
[4] According to the Cambridge Dictionary, ‘woke’ stands for an increased awareness of social problems such as racism and inequality (see: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke). For interpretations of the terms woke and wokeness in the Danish context, see, for example, Pröschold and Fahrendorff (2022). And Wiedemann (2022).
[5] See e.g. also Dahl (2023).
[6] See also the X-post by one of the researchers responsible for the study
(https://twitter.com/M_B_Petersen/status/1536248035944108032)
[7] See, for example: https://newsroom.au.dk/en/news/show/artikel/koedsagen-faa-overblikket-her/; and: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-nordics-2021-2-principles-for-sponsored-research-in-wake-of-danish-beef-scandal/; as well as: https://danwatch.dk/en/undersoegelse/the-pork-report-how-impart i al –
climate-research-was-dictated-by-danish-crown-and-used-in-pork-advertising/
[8] See for an overview of the conflict: Vestergaard and Andersen (2021).