Ingvild Kjerkol complains about the decision to cancel the master’s thesis

This is stated by Kjerkol via his lawyer Marianne Klaussen to NTB.

The tribunal concluded that there was a significant amount of plagiarism in the thesis. Cheating on the scale that had been uncovered could not have occurred without Kjerkol’s knowledge of it, the tribunal believed, which found that she had cheated with intent – that is, on purpose.

But the tribunal based its decision on the same factual basis as the examiners had in 2021, Klausen writes in a press release explaining the decision to appeal.

– The examiners made a proper assessment in 2021 and have not gone beyond the legal framework they have as professionals, writes Kjerkol’s lawyer.

– The censorship decision they made is therefore valid, and the master’s thesis should not have been cancelled, she writes further.

Taus Kjerkol

Kjerkol and the fellow student with whom she collaborated on the thesis received the decision from the Board for Student Affairs at Nord University three weeks ago. They had until Thursday to decide whether or not to appeal.

The article continues below the adThe article continues below the ad

So now their case goes on to the Joint Complaints Board, a national board that deals with cases from all universities.

The former Minister of Health and Care himself did not wish to elaborate on the decision to complain to NTB.

– Ingvild Kjerkol has resigned as minister and is now head of the Storting’s energy and environment committee. She wants to focus on her new tasks and does not want to give any further comment on the complaint, writes Klausen.

The article continues below the adThe article continues below the ad

Watch video: Can Støre tolerate more?

Ask if universities can change their minds

The tribunal’s decision had immediate consequences for Kjerkol. The following day, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre (Ap) announced that she would have to resign as a minister.

Kjerkol is not dependent on the master’s degree in his work, but that many other former master’s degree students are, the lawyer points out.

A central element in the appeal case is to clarify whether a university can cancel a master’s thesis without new information having come to light in the case. If the law is interpreted in this way, universities will be able to change their minds and go against previous censors’ academic assessments, Klausen continues.

The article continues below the ad

– It gives them access to change that no other administrative body has. This will also entail a legal certainty problem for anyone who has received a censure at university and college level, she writes.

Fourth round

There will now be a fourth instance that will deal with the Labor Party politician’s master’s thesis. The assignment was first assessed by an examiner in 2021. It was then looked at by the academic commission for student affairs, which was brought in after plagiarism was suspected.

The commission reached a different conclusion than the board for student affairs was supposed to reach. They believed that cheating was suspected, but to a far lesser extent than the board for student affairs, and under doubt, Lars Klemsdal of the commission explained to Khrono. He has advocated that Kjerkol should complain.

The article continues below the ad

– I believe that it is important in principle that the students appeal the decision with regard to precedent and as a contribution to the criteria and assessment basis for such cases being further clarified, which is obviously needed, Klemsdal tells the newspaper.

The article continues below the ad

Have to wait months

Kjerkol (Ap) may not get an answer for four months to the complaint about the decision to cancel her master’s thesis.

– On a general basis, the processing time for new cases is now approximately four months, the secretariat of the Joint Complaints Board states in an email to NTB.

This is a national committee that deals with cases from all universities.

The master’s thesis was the subject of consideration by the committee for student affairs at Nord University after the media mentioned several cases of text similarity. The plagiarism check showed 19 percent text overlap with other sources. On 11 April, the decision was made that the assignment should be rejected. And now this decision is being appealed to the Joint Appeal Board.

The reason why the academic commission and the Board for Student Affairs came to different conclusions was that the commission’s assessment was academic, while the board’s was legal, board chairman Eilif Nordahl has explained, according to Dagens Næringsliv.

The article continues below the ad

Critical to leaks

Kjerkol hopes that Felle’s appeals board will have time to assess the fundamentally important matter further, concludes Klaussen.

She writes that it is understandable that the case has received a lot of attention in the media.

The article continues below the ad

– It has nevertheless been a burden for my clients that Nord University has not safeguarded their basic rights by making confidential information known to the public. This has also contributed to the fact that the case has been presented in an unvarnished manner in the media, she writes.

There was considerable media coverage of the case during and after the tribunal proceedings. Among other things, TV 2 was given access to the twelve-page decision. Board chairman Eilif Nordahl tells VG that he is completely confused that there should have been any kind of leak from the appeals board.

– I cannot see what kind of interest anyone in the appeals board would have in leaking information, he says.

It was checked with the IT service whether the information could have come out through a data leak, but that there was nothing to indicate that this had happened.