This text has been translated from Norwegian with the assistance of GPT UiO.
The University Board has addressed the question of an academic boycott of Israel at several meetings. Nearly two years ago, in May 2024, the Board concluded that an academic boycott of Israel would not be appropriate. Since then, the issue has been discussed at multiple meetings, with particular attention to where the boundary lies between institutional collaboration and researcher?to?researcher cooperation, especially in projects funded through the EU research programme Horizon Europe. Anyone who reads Khrono regularly will have noticed that there are differing opinions on this matter, including within the University Board itself.
At its meeting on 10 March, the Board once again considered a case concerning research ethics and international collaboration. After extensive discussion, the University Board adopted the following decisions:
- Externally funded projects in which Israeli institutions participate as formal contractual partners shall not be defined as overarching institutional agreements, and such agreements may be entered into.
- The Board notes that the University of Oslo has no overarching institutional agreements with Israeli institutions and decides that UiO will, for the time being, refrain from entering into new overarching institutional cooperation agreements with Israeli universities.
- The Board emphasises that researchers and the institution have a particular duty of caution when assessing research ethics in projects involving institutions located in states involved in war or conflict.
The different parts of the decision command different majorities. Only the final point was adopted unanimously.
I am pleased that the University Board has confirmed that our staff may continue to include Israeli research institutions as formal contractual partners in externally funded projects such as Horizon Europe projects. To decide otherwise would constitute a problematic restriction of our employees’ academic freedom — specifically, their freedom to choose their own academic collaborators working at Israeli research institutions. UiO is part of a global knowledge community, and our researchers’ right to choose the partners they consider most relevant and qualified is a crucial driver in the global development of knowledge to which we contribute.
Strengthened Protection in the Law
The principle of academic freedom, particularly the academic freedom of employees, has been given strengthened protection in the Universities and University Colleges Act. The Act states: “Universities and university colleges shall promote and safeguard academic freedom and those who exercise it.”
However, academic freedom is not only a legal principle; it is also a fundamental ethical principle underpinning the work we do at UiO. Academic freedom protects research?based knowledge production at UiO and other universities from political, economic, religious, or ideological pressure or influence. In other words, academic freedom is not just any value or interest — it is essential.
Reflected in UiO’s Ethical Guidelines
Naturally, the principle of academic freedom is also embedded in UiO’s ethical guidelines. These state, among other things:
“UiO is committed, based on the principle of academic freedom, to maintaining good relations with and being open to academic cooperation with widely recognised scholarly communities across national borders and political and cultural divides.
UiO opposes the use of academic boycott as a political instrument and works to ensure that scientific networks can be used constructively in conflicts where diplomatic channels break down.”
UiO’s own ethical guidelines therefore explicitly do not permit academic boycott as a political tool, and the reasoning behind this point is precisely the principle of academic freedom.
Academic Freedom Nationally and Globally
There is no reason to take academic freedom for granted. It is under pressure in many parts of the world. China invests heavily in research, but academic freedom is severely constrained. The situation in the United States — long the world’s leading scientific nation — is increasingly concerning. Among European countries, the situation in Hungary (and Russia, if one includes Russia as part of Europe) is the most troubling. The Academic Freedom Index (pdf) provides an overview of the status and developments in academic freedom — and it does not make cheerful reading.
In Norway, the Norwegian Association of Researchers and the National Union of Students have launched a campaign to have academic freedom enshrined in the Constitution. This campaign must be seen in connection with the Socialist Left Party’s June 2024 proposal to constitutionally protect academic freedom, which will be considered during the current parliamentary term. So far, there does not appear to be sufficient support in Parliament to pass such a constitutional amendment.
In discussions about the principle of academic freedom and the question of strengthened legal protection, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the most important justification for academic freedom is not legal. The most important reason to protect academic freedom is that it is a fundamental prerequisite for UiO and other universities to remain the truth?seeking institutions they are meant to be. Without academic freedom, research cannot be guaranteed to be independent of interests other than the pursuit of truth. Academic freedom is therefore essential to ensuring that both the public and elected officials can trust research and have confidence in it.