Should we laugh or cry, NTNU?

On September 17, two teenagers from Trondheim were killed by a third. All were or are asylum seekers from Afghanistan. They came to the country as singles and minors. Associate Professor Øyvind Eikrem of NTNU's Department of Social Work was interviewed by the controversial Resett om saken website. He was then called for a conversation with his immediate leader, while the Dean of the faculty and the director of NTNU quickly came forward and said that this was clearly his academic freedom.

critical

The question created a debate. Freedom of expression and expression of responsibility, difference between what is purely legal and what is moral and ethical. NTNU executives have been criticized for violating an employee's freedom of expression, while Eikrem has been criticized for legitimizing the highly-resettled website Resett and for making very general statements about young Afghan men in a case of concrete murder.

Critics in both directions seemed to be completely in place.

Counterfeit students

Last week, the case took a new turn at NTNU. 44 students wrote a call and sent it to the management. Many of them feel violated by Eikrem's statements to Resett.

They mean that the statements "are built in prejudices and attitudes that are not compatible with social work – and racism, as also stated in the commentary of the article".

In particular, they react by declaring themselves to be associate professors, and not as individuals, and furthermore ask the department management to deal with this problem with Eikrem in order to avoid "the anxiety of the students at the school. school".

The County Council summoned Eikrem to a new meeting and asked him to keep the file confidential and internal in order to avoid any "untoward mental tension" on the students. History shows that the management rejected the complaint and Eikrem invited the students to meet. Only one of the 44 came.

unbelievable

This is the joyous frenzy. The management of the department should of course immediately encourage students to promote public criticism. And students must see that this is part of a public debate and that it is not a matter of the fact that the university management must protect them from the "mistrust" of the fact that one of your teachers considered something that was publicly unpleasant.

Eikrem used his speech to talk. His students must use the same freedom to criticize him.

That it is not obvious, neither for the students nor for the direction of the department of the largest university in Norway, is incredible.