Professor: Significant if the minister changes her mind about what’s ok to say and do at a university

Over the past few years, Minister for Higher Education and Science Christina Egelund has changed her thinking about what’s ok to say and do at a Danish university. 

She explained this development at a consultation in the Folketing on 3 December. The topic of the consultation was the security situation for Jewish students at Danish universities. At the consultation, it was also announced that the universities and Egelund are currently developing national guidelines for the universities that set out a zero tolerance policy for harassment and other forms of intimidation. 

“Initially, my position was that if something isn’t illegal, it must be ok to express at a university. But when reality hits – for example a swastika – then suddenly that makes me think something else is at stake,” the minister is quoted as saying at the consultation.

Here she was referring to an episode that took place at the University of Copenhagen in 2023, when a Jewish student was confronted by a swastika on the blackboard in a classroom. Swastikas aren’t illegal in Denmark, but the minister stated that she doesn’t believe that there’s any one who has doubts about the inappropriateness of drawing a swastika at a university. 

But in fact, there is. Rune Stubager, a professor of political science at Aarhus University, is a former member of the Danish committee on freedom of expression established by the Folketing in 2017. In 2023, the commission published a report on the state of freedom of expression in Denmark. 

According to Stubager, what’s acceptable depends on the context and a case-by-case assessment – but he believes that there should be considerable latitude for freedom of expression, as long as you’re not breaking the law. He said: 

“We can’t have a situation where it’s not possible to invite a professed Nazi to a student association meeting. As long as the person in question – which is their personal responsibility – complies with the law in their statements. If they want to draw a swastika on the board, I think that has to be permitted. By the same token, we can’t have a situation where people aren’t allowed to criticize Israel or argue that the country ought to be abolished.” However, he added: 

“But I’m open to a discussion of whether it’s acceptable if a student, during a break in a lecture about something completely different, draws a swastika on the board, well knowing that there is a Jewish person in the room.” 

“Freedom of expression has never been an acceptable justification”

Minister for Higher Education and Science Christina Egelund declined to be interviewed for this article. We would have like to ask the minister to clarify what kinds of behavior she no longer believes should be acceptable at a university, what has led her to change her position, and how this stance harmonises with the right to freely and openly debate all topics at a university. 

Minister listens to Jewish students and plans to implement zero tolerance for harassment at universities

According to Stubager, if the minister’s views on the limits of free speech at the universities have changed, this is a noteworthy development. In particular because the individual Danish universities already have codes of conduct, as required by the University Act. Omnibus would have like to ask the minister whether she has taken the university’s codes of conduct into consideration. For example, the code of conduct for students at Aarhus University states that “during their studies at the university, students must conduct themselves in a considerate and decent manner out of consideration for the uninterrupted functioning of the university,” and that “students have an obligation to show consideration for other students as well as employees, and for the university’s premises”. Violations of the code can result in disciplinary action, expulsion and criminal charges.

“Once we’re in the classroom, group rooms and such at the university, we’re covered by the code of conduct. You can’t just cover the board with swastikas that don’t have any relation to the class or the research in order to harass the Jewish students in the class. In such cases, you might argue that we’re approaching something tantamount to persecution. Where you draw the line depends on the purpose of it. But in this case it’s a question of the institution’s ability to function and that everyone must be treated with respect,” Stubager says.  

In short, universities already have rules governing the behavior of their students and employees. And on top of that, the laws that apply to society as a whole also apply to the universities. In light of this, Stubager has a hard time pinpointing just what the universities and the minister think is different now that justifies the change in their position on free speech in the course of the past year: 

“Freedom of expression has never been an acceptable justification for gross harassment of other students,” Stubager says.  

“The university cannot be a safe space free of conflicting ideas”

According to Stubager, the minister’s statements can be interpreted to mean that there are things that are forbidden to say on campus, and that’s concerning – especially when it comes to forms of expression that are permitted under the law:  

“If that’s what she means, I think it’s a huge problem. The university cannot be a safe space free of conflicting ideas, and treating people with respect is not the same as protecting them from viewpoints they disagree with.” 

The university has to offer space for conflicting ideas: and the ideal behind this is that ideas that might be perceive as crazy by some come out into the open where they can be discussed and contested, he explains. 

He characterises the minister’s statements as a potential slippery slope: 

“The argument the minister makes here contains a slippery slope. Because what will be the next thing we’re not allowed to say, and in what context are we not allowed to say it? Most people in Denmark are opposed to Nazism, but who knows what other kinds of things people might also be opposed to. And maybe particularly so in certain university circles. For example, what would be the reaction if a department introduces a policy that it’s forbidden to say that there are only two sexes? Should that be acceptable on the grounds that some people would find that statement deeply offensive?”

Stubager emphases that while his position is informed by his work on the committee on freedom of expression, he is stating his own personal opinions. 

Rector: “There is no place for threatening behavior and harassment”

AU’s rector Brian Bech Nielsen has stated that he was “deeply” affected by Jewish students’ accounts of their experiences at other universities in Denmark. He said this in the context of a reference to AU’s code of conduct, under which all students have a duty to behave with decency and consideration for others: 

“At the request of the minister, the rectors of the Danish universities have been in dialogue with representatives from Jewish Youth (the youth division of the Jewish Community in Denmark, ed.), and have been presented with anonymized accounts of Jewish students’ experiences after the terrorist attack on Israel last year and the subsequent war in Gaza. This affected me deeply, and no one in this room can doubt that many Jewish students have been exposed to statements and actions that have made them feel unsafe on our universities’ campuses. This is unfortunately also the case for Jewish students at AU. A healthy society and a healthy university protect their minorities. We all have a duty to behave considerately and demonstrate decency and respect. There is no place for threatening behavior and harassment. This is also stated clearly in our code of conduct at AU.”

The rector also refers to AU’s declaration on freedom of expression and explains that AU’s position on freedom of expression remains unchanged. The declaration safeguards students’ and employees’ freedom of speech, even when such speech is offensive to others: 

“I have not changed my mind about our declaration on freedom of expression at AU. Free and open debate in which participants present their views and listen to the views of their opponents is absolutely fundamental to the university, but as our declaration also emphasizes, everyone has ‘a responsibility to contribute to a culture of civility’. The meeting with the ministers and the representatives from Jewish Youth has led me to consider whether there might be a need for a renewed effort to raise awareness of our code of conduct as well as a need to clarify where staff and employees can seek help if they need it.”

AU has received one report

As mentioned above, the minister’s comments were made at a consultation on the security situation for Jewish students at Danish universities. Multiple Jewish students have reported feeling unsafe on campus at Roskilde University and the University of Copenhagen due to pro-Palestinian demonstrations. To follow up on this, Omnibus contacted Aarhus University to find out whether there have been any similar reports here since 7 October 2023. The university responded that only one report is on record. 

It was received last November, when a student with Jewish heritage wrote to the Faculty of Arts that they had been feeling “more alienated at Arts, and every day I come to campus with a little knot in my stomach” since the war between Israel and Hamas broke out in October 2023. The concrete incident that motivated the report was a Friday bar held by the student association Arabar, which is part of the Arab and Islamic studies program. The theme of the Friday bar was 'LiBARate Palestine’.

The student also wrote: “I have spoken with a few other Jewish students at Arts who generally feel that there’s no safe space for Jews right now, and that Nobel Park in particular is not a safe, secure place to be.” They also stated that the Israeli flag had been painted over on a message board. 

The minutes of a meeting of the school forum at the School of Culture and Society on 30 November last year also contain a statement to the effect that “students with Jewish heritage feel very alone and unwelcome”. 

RUC and UCPH condemn pro-Palestinian demonstrations 

In November, the executive leadership team at RUC announced that the pro-Palestinian student organisation RUC Intifada would be required to request prior authorization for their demonstrations from both RUC and the police, and that the group is prohibited from holding meetings or other activities on RUC’s premises. In the announcement, the leadership team condemns the graffiti that has been painted on buildings at the university which displays hateful messages against Israel and Jews. 

“It is deeply regrettable that a few individuals have created such a sense of insecurity at Roskilde University,” RUC writes.

Conversely, a number of researchers and lecturers at RUC have defended RUC Intifada’s right to demonstrate in an op ed in Politiken. 

And at the University of Copenhagen, Associate Professor Jakob v. H. Holtermann has also criticized the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Uniavisen: in late November, the group Students against the Occupation was directed to leave campus during a demonstration, while a group of students who were demonstrating against the relocation of a faculty at the same time was not asked to leave. The rector of UCPH, Henrik C. Wegener, has stated that the university’s patience with demonstrations “which relate to Israel and Palestine,and which to a high degree affect other parts of the university community” is wearing thin. But this is not a valid argument, Holtermann writes. Nonetheless, he also states that students must comply with UCPH’s code of conduct. In this connection, it’s relevant that Uniavisen also published an op ed by a Bachelor’s degree student who writes that the Students against the Occupation group interferes with his work on his Bachelor’s project when they demonstrate outside the reading room while he’s trying to write. 

Anthropologist: “The issues at stake are clearer now, but the context has changed”

Gritt B. Nielsen is an associate professor of educational anthropology at DPU who is an expert on student activism. She thinks it’s interesting that Minister Egelund’s comments at the consultation reflect and accommodate calls for a greater focus on psychological security, inclusion and diversity that some students and academics have been making for the past 5-10 years. Nielsen explains that this movement has highlighted how some words and actions can exclude certain groups of students. Such ideas have been criticized by other public intellectuals, academics and politicians as a threat to freedom of expression, and they are interpreted as meaning that students have become too quick to take offense, she explains. 

“We’re dealing with a group of students who don’t always feel that the university is a safe space for them. Some years ago, this led to a discussion of ‘safe spaces’, and especially among conservative thinkers and certain academics, it was argued very strongly and categorically that the university cannot be a safe space, while others, including myself, argued that we need a more nuanced understanding of what ‘safety’ actually means. 

Egelund’s comments indicate a policy shift from a more narrow focus on freedom of expression and the American Chicago principles, according to Nielsen. She says: 

“What the minister is saying is what some of the students who have been fighting for antidiscrimination and inclusion and so on have also been saying. Now it’s being said in a different context with reference to a different minority group at the university. The Jewish students are also saying it’s a question of avoiding harassment of all students. I think this is important to stress. It applies to everyone, no matter what minority group we’re talking about.” She goes on to say:

“The issues at stake are clearer now, but the context has changed. But these debates have been going on for decades. This conflict may have revealed something many people were saying earlier: We need to ground these discussions, and there’s a day-to-day reality at the university which involves some purposes that are unique to us, and that’s what we need to integrate and develop our practices around democracy, freedom of expression, justice, inclusion and so on.” 

At the same time, like AU’s rector Brian Bech Nielsen and Professor Rune Stubager, she points out that the university already has a code of conduct: 

“There are already guidelines for these things. There are things that are decidedly illegal where the police are involved. And we have local codes of conduct. It seems as if there’s some political pressure from somewhere motivated by an agenda. She (Egelund, ed.) says that the universities must have their own values. Yes, but then shouldn’t it be the universities themselves that develop this? And she also touches on what’s acceptable. It’s all very vague. I don’t know how much stock we should put in it. I believe that the universities are well placed to develop these things themselves and initiate dialogue among students and employees about the nature and purposes of the space of the university. This should be developed and anchored throughout the institution, from the classroom and student cafes to boards of studies and the boardroom.”