SUHF report on academic freedom in the Nordic countries

The report Akademisk frihet så in i Norden (Academic freedom like the Nordics) was written by Tim Ekberg on behalf of the Expert group for analysis at SUHF. The report essentially constitutes a survey and a comparison that includes all the Nordic countries. It concludes with proposals aimed primarily at the Riksdag and Government to clarify and strengthen academic freedom.

Political control has increased

The introduction declares that academic freedom is a prerequisite for higher education institutions to be able to carry out their mission. Among other things, it states that “Academic freedom comprises several different elements that together form the very foundations for higher education institutions. The basic premise is that education and research need to be free from external control and influence and that the autonomy of higher education institutions is respected. At the same time, higher education institutions should be an integral, responsive and active part of their societies.”

The report notes that the political governance of higher education institutions has increased in all the Nordic countries, as well as in the rest of Europe. It states that “this is in large part related to a desire on the part of the Swedish Government for higher education institutions to support the country's economic growth and assist with various societal challenges. This desire is both understandable and laudable, but it is also potentially harmful. These desires and expectations that are placed on higher education institutions risk negatively affecting their fundamental mission to freely pursue and freely impart knowledge.”

Seven proposal areas

The report concludes with seven proposal areas that are explained and elaborated. The proposals take aim primarily at the Riksdag and the Government for their implementation.

The proposals can be briefly summarised as follows:

• Protection of academic freedom in the Swedish Constitution and Higher Education Act.
• An adapted organisational form for higher education institutions with their own legal capacity.
• The majority of members of the Board of the higher education institution and its chair are to be appointed by the Board itself.
• The Board should recruit and approve the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor itself.
• A customised resource allocation system which, in brief, consists of direct government funding that is not divided up between education and research, increased access to untied, unrestricted funds, a national statement of objectives for education and research paired with a process for agreements between higher education institutions, and a generous attitude towards accumulated agency capital.
• Less control and greater trust to reduce growing bureaucratisation among other things.
• Maintained collegial structures.

Anders Berndt