http://www.israelwhat.com/?p=3314

NTNU is one of Norway’s most prestigious universities. This autumn the university is presenting a series of seminars on the Palestine-Israel conflict where all of the speakers, as well as the members of the organizing committee, are known adherents of the Palestinian narrative. Why is the Israeli narrative not given equal attention? Is Israel so fundamentally evil that her perspective is irrelevant? NTNU rector Torbjørn Digernes says that all speakers at the seminar are required to be objective, and that he as rector stands by the decision to host the seminars.

Unauthorized translation from NTNU’s Rector’s Page:

One of the universities’ most important tasks in society, is to provide room and opportunity for a free, research based exchange of opinons. We are to provide an accessible pulpit, people shall be allowed to speak and opinions are to be contested.

The professional logic behind a research based approach to the conflict in the Middle East, is to be able to communicate and discuss with the researchers who set the agenda for the professional debate. As opposed to the political debate, research builds on documented and transparent analysis and conclusions. It lies in the fundamental ethos of research to contribute to document facts, to challenge established truths or to pose new questions which have not been asked before.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestians is one of the most complex in the contemporary world. Both sides seek to advance their case by agitating with political arguments, where the use of facts and documentation often is not verifiable. The purpose of this series is to create an arena on the premises and demands of research.

Researchers are also human beings with the right to hold opinions about societal issues. It must be possible for a researcher to act in both capacities.

One consequence of this, is that if a researcher is to maintain his credibility as a researcher, it is required that she clearly differentiates between acting as a citizen – entitled to her opinons on the basis of her personal values and political beliefs – and on presentations based on scientific requirements for documentation and totality.

I find that the first lecture in the series lived up to this. The examination of the framework of international law surrounding the conflict were factual, illuminating and clarifying (See in this respect Adresseavisen’s article on September 3rd). The other speakers have been requested to illuminate their topics correspondingly, by means of fact and knowledge from their own research.

I remain convinced that this is a praiseworthy initiative