Terje Einarsen’s statements have been unwise and inappropriate, and we sincerely expect more from a professor at the Faculty of Law.
This is a submitted post. The post expresses the authors’ own opinions.
After several weeks with demonstrations, markings and board meetings, the dust has settled. The faculty board at the Faculty of Law at the University of Bergen has decided to terminate its exchange agreement with Tel Aviv University (TAU). UiB no longer has institutional agreements with educational institutions in Israel.
There is nobody doubt that the temperature has been high at times, but on the whole the discussion has been civilized and in line with the academic values that one can expect at UiB. Three of the most outspoken people in favor of an academic boycott at UiB, in Khrono on 22 March, also praised what they themselves perceived as a very thorough and factual discussion during the board meeting that ended with the termination of the collaboration with TAU.
It is joyful to see that, despite disagreements, one still advances one’s views in a constructive and respectful way. Healthy debate presupposes that one accepts that the other party is not necessarily wrong, but that one simply only disagrees.
Unfortunately, not everyone has adopted an equally constructive attitude.
Among the least constructive has been professor at the Faculty of Law, Terje Einarsen.
Repeatedly have he has made statements and claims that have been unnecessary, irrelevant and contributed negatively to the debate climate.
In addition, it works Einarsen constantly confuses his role as a professor and as a private person.
In a post In Studvest on 5 March, Einarsen wrote that his own dean, Karl Harald Søvig, “(…) should seriously consider whether it is worthwhile for him to continue as dean (…)”. The text was written as a response to Søvig’s statement in BT on 28 February about why he was against terminating the agreement with TAU.
The comment is unnecessary and disrespectful, but it has so far been allowed to stand unchallenged. Probably because Einarsen’s colleagues are too polite and disciplined enough not to settle for such a low level of debate.
By far the grossest the example, and which is the reason we are writing this post, however, follows from the preparatory case papers for the faculty board meeting at the Faculty of Law. There, Einarsen submitted his view on the issue of whether or not the faculty should terminate its collaboration with TAU. He also addressed the students directly on the faculty board:
“The Faculty of Law in Bergen must terminate the agreement with TAU. Anything else would be ethically indefensible and incur the risk of punishable complicity in genocide. The students on the board with a long life ahead of them should know about that.”
As far as us acquaintance, Einarsen is the only law professor at UiB, if not in the country, who seriously believes that students risk guilt of complicity in genocide if they vote to allow fellow students to go on exchange to Israel. It is an extremely gross and serious claim that Einarsen claims is not a theory. He has still not presented any thorough justifications or practice to support his claim. More of us react to that.
Nevertheless, this is presented as a kind of scientific truth. His direct address to the students, signed “Professor of International Law”, was apparently intended to intimidate them into voting for an outcome that he personally wanted, while at the same time using his professional position to achieve it. It is unprofessional.
Not enough with the. The students now risk ending up in the lectures of a man who has publicly stated that they would incur a personal risk of complicity in genocide if they voted against his personal wishes. It shows a poor understanding of the role of professor and the power the position entails.
Such posts and statements are not only unconstructive and partly disrespectful. We would actually argue that Einarsen tends towards the anti-academic, as he has time and again refrained from a healthy exchange of opinions and debate. His statements have been unwise and inappropriate, at times at the expense of our union representatives.
We sincerely expect more from a professor at the Faculty of Law.
