Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law.” 

This is section 77 of the Danish constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to freedom of expression.

But something that is relatively simple to formulate in a legal text can be difficult to interpret in practice – even at a university. Motivated by a number of recent freedom of expression cases both in Denmark and abroad, the Danish committee on freedom of expression recommended in its 2020 report that university management teams in Denmark investigate how freedom of research, information and expression could be supported. This report marked the beginning of an initiative which, in April this year, resulted in the AU board issuing a declaration on the freedom of expression for staff and students at Aarhus University.

Here, Rector Brian Bech Nielsen explains what the management team focused on when preparing the declaration.

“We have of course noticed what is going on in the USA and the UK, where researchers are losing their jobs because of things they have said or their choice of teaching material, and this is not something we wish to endorse. It is part of the freedom of research and academic freedom in general that university staff are permitted to choose the methods and materials that deliver the best research and teaching,” explains Rector Brian Bech Nielsen.

“It’s not unrealistic that this type of case will make its way to Denmark in some form or another, which is why it’s important to make our position clear in advance, so we can go some way to protecting ourselves against trends currently at play elsewhere,” says Brian Bech Nielsen.

At a university, you have to accept being exposed to opinions that you find unpleasant or perhaps even offensive. And then it is up to the individual to counter these opinions using the power of argument in an open and honest debate.

In response to the question of what management were keen to include in the declaration, the rector says:

“At a university, you have to accept being exposed to opinions that you find unpleasant or perhaps even offensive. And then it is up to the individual to counter these opinions using the power of argument in an open and honest debate.”

When preparing the declaration, the management consulted the Chicago principles, which were developed by the University of Chicago in order to guarantee the freedom of expression of its teaching staff.

“But our view is that these principles speak to a different and more American context than the one we find ourselves in. So we have attempted to make a more Danish, we could even say a more Jutlandic, version of the principles that reflects our core values at the university. And I hope that staff, students and managers will see the declaration as a mandate,” says Brian Bech Nielsen.

To ensure the right people know about the declaration, it will be presented during introduction sessions for new students and staff.

The rector emphasises that the point of the declaration is not to limit the general right to freedom of expression.

But, in this case, we could ask why it is necessary to further define the constitutional right to freedom of expression by issuing a declaration.

“We think there is good reason to do this – as I mentioned previously, we were influenced by the situation in the USA and the UK, where teaching staff lost their jobs because they held – and expressed – an opinion that some people disagreed with. But difference of opinion is the lifeblood of a university. So we shouldn’t try to supress it. We should allow room for it.”

What difference do you hope it will make that AU now has a declaration on freedom of expression?   

“The declaration should be seen as a backstop or a fixed point of reference that we can call on if we are challenged – and I’m sure will be at some point. But, if we are, we can refer to our concise and clear description of the principles we wish to defend,” says the rector.

Rector went too far in Aleppo theme bar case

It is precisely in specific controversial situations that a declaration like this should prove its worth. Such a situation arose in 2016, when students from the political science programme designed an ‘Aleppo theme bar’ in connection with a traditional student Christmas celebration. Students attended the theme bar at the same time as Aleppo was subjected to bombardments in the conflict between insurgency movements and the Assad regime. The students realised that they had crossed the line and subsequently apologised on Facebook.

But the episode caused the rector to write a comment on Facebook aimed at the university’s students, in which he stressed that similar cases would not be tolerated by the university. Among other things, he wrote:

“Even though the university must accommodate differences of opinion, events should be held in a way that does NOT cause offence to others, as was the case on this occasion.”

This formulation stands in stark contrast to the line recently adopted in AU’s declaration, and the rector acknowledges that, at the time, he made a miscalculation.

I have also thought about the case since, and I have to admit that my comment back then missed the mark.

“I have also thought about the case since, and I have to admit that my comment back then missed the mark.”

He continues:

“We must treat each other respectfully, and the declaration acknowledges this, but it also maintains that the right to freedom of expression can never be subordinated to this principle. We have to comply with this – and that’s also what I should have done at the time. My comment should have simply made it clear that I personally did not think it in good taste to add the word ‘bar’ to the name of a city experiencing bombardment and conflict. And that should have been it,” says the rector.

In another case from 2018, in which a student dressed up as the former president of the USA Barrack Obama, the university chose to delete pictures of the incident after students pointed out that the images were offensive. But the rector defends the university’s actions in this case.

“As I understand this case, the university acted to protect the student, because it was the university who had taken and published the picture of the student in question, and the student risked getting caught up in the controversy,” explains the rector.

Management must defend employees’ right to express their views

Let us return to cases that relate to members of staff. Earlier in the year, the declaration on freedom of expression was sent out for consultation at AU, and several members of staff requested that it address more explicitly how the university plans to safeguard freedom of research. A request that the management chose not to take on board.

“We wanted to keep the declaration short and to focus on freedom of expression. Freedom of research has been considered in another context, namely in a policy for research integrity, freedom of research and responsible research conduct – and also in relation to research collaboration with external partners. We have established that the management has a responsibility to support freedom of research for both the university and the individual researcher,” says the rector.

We have established that the management has a responsibility to support freedom of research for both the university and the individual researcher.

When Stiig Markager, professor at the Department of Ecoscience, was taken to court by the special interest organisation Bæredygtigt Landbrug (Sustainable Agriculture) in 2020 for having allegedly defamed Danish farmers, this was an attack on the professor’s freedom of expression and freedom of research, explains the rector.

“And, because of that, we stepped in and supported him in the case.”

In this connection, he explains, it is the researcher’s responsibility to defend the academic claims they are making, and it is the management’s responsibility to defend the researcher’s right to make them.

In some cases, it might be necessary to point out that the researcher is not speaking on behalf of the university but on behalf of his or her own academic integrity.

“In some cases, it might be necessary to point out that the researcher is not speaking on behalf of the university but on behalf of his or her own academic integrity,” says the rector.

We must continue to discuss possible dilemmas before they arise

Let us turn to another and more recent example, this time from the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Copenhagen, where, in March this year, the Muslim Student Association MSA City Campus invited the Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir to speak at the university. The event attracted criticism, especially because it segregated participants according to sex.

How would you approach this type of case at AU?

“What I find particularly interesting in this case is the sex segregation. And I think we’d do well to discuss this at AU. If somebody wanted to hold a similar event here at the university, they shouldn’t be surprised if I exercised my democratic right to stand outside with a placard saying: ‘I support gender equality’. Sex segregation runs contrary to our core values at AU and the way we usually organise our society,” says the rector, who also remarks that events held at AU must support or be connected to the university’s activities.

“We also have several student organisations that hold a variety of events, and they have the right to do this, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that these events can accommodate a variety of viewpoints,” says the rector.

It’s important to find common ground

This week, freedom of expression at Danish universities was the topic of a hearing in the Education and Research Committee in the Danish Parliament. Many representatives from Danish universities took part, along with Daniel Diermeier, chancellor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee and former member of academic staff at the University of Chicago when the Chicago principles were introduced in 2014.

The politicians in the committee were keen to hear the panel participants’ views on whether the Chicago principles should be incorporated into Danish law.

The answer from the panel was no. However, representatives from the university sector agreed that it would be good to find some common ground on the issue.

Brian Bech Nielsen shares this opinion.

“Work is already underway on this, and I expect that we will reach an agreement. It will be good for the sector to have a shared point of departure and to interpret freedom of expression and freedom of research in the same way.”

With true Jutlandic understatement, the rector concludes with a smile:

“If I could give the Danish universities one piece of advice, it would be to endorse the declaration we have just issued.”

AU’s declaration on freedom of expression for staff and students

Translated by Sarah Jennings