http://www.uib.no/ledelsen/en/nyheter/2010/01/rector-s-summary-academic-boycott-and-academic-freedom
Grønmo writes:
“An open meeting on academic boycott on the 18th January, that was organized by the Student Society in Bergen, has resulted in a great deal of media attention.
I was invited as a speaker to the Student Society meeting. Some media have given a very biased and misleading presentation of my comments and viewpoints. I have therefore decided to summarize some of the main points.
The invitation that I received from the student association is the only reason that I have commented on the matter. The debate was not initiated by me.
The debate dealt partly with some concrete suggestions regarding academic boycott of Israel, and partly with some general opinions concerning academic boycott as a possible form of action. Both at the meeting and afterwards, I have made it clear that academic boycott of Israel is not on the agenda as a policy for the University of Bergen. At the University of Bergen there are no plans for an academic boycott of Israel.
I have expressed the view that academic boycott as a general and possible form of action can not in principle be rejected. In situations where a country’s academic freedom is so restricted that professional collaboration or open academic debate is impossible or not meaningful, then academic boycott may be considered as a possible reaction. The Norwegian universities were engaged in a long lasting academic boycott of the apartheid regime in South Africa, as part of a more general international boycott.
The question of whether or not academic boycott is in principle irreconcilable with academic freedom has been raised. My understanding of that matter is as follows:
The institutional autonomy of universities implies that universities themselves shall decide who they will collaborate with, and therefore also who they will not collaborate with. In certain situations a university must itself have the right to decide to implement an academic boycott of a country. Such a decision, by the university board, will in particular apply to institutional agreements on co-operation and other contact at the institution level.
On the other hand, the academic freedom for the academic staff implies that such a resolution by the university board, would not be legally binding for each single academic employee. The resolution cannot be an order to follow up the boycott decision. That each employee has the freedom to decide for he, who he or she will or will not collaborate with, does however mean that this freedom of choice also can be used to support an academic boycott of a country.
An academic boycott will not be particularly effective if the institutional decision is not followed up by the employees and the academic milieus. There will therefore be no academic boycott without the broad support of the university employees and academic milieus.”
