Anyway:

The professor in Geology is rightly a bit puzzled about for whom it would be interesting to accumulate such information, we all know the way communists had their “files” collected by the government back in the 70’s and 80’s, and for many such implications leave a bad taste in the mouth. And translating correctly is always a difficult endeavour, so I understand why he decided to have a proper translation submitted anyway.

As for the three “reasons” Thon might have had, which you post, the seminars is far from as one sided as some seem to think, I have yet to see anyone take any of the guest lecturers in false statements, or delivering non-scientific arguments. And regardless, he stated the proposed boycott as the reason for his divesting, not a series of guest lectures. So that goes out the window.

As for “slipping through” the boycott proposal was discussed from late summer locally, so I don’t really see how it can have been said to have gone under the radar. It was rather one of the reasons why some members of the board wanted it put on the agenda, so the matter could be dealt with once and for all. :)

And as for the last “reason”. I doubt you find any university in the free world that doesn’t have some academics who share some political view and are vocal about it. The fact that there were so few co-signers of the proposal, as opposed to the large number of people who signed the request to NOT follow the proposal, shows what a minority the boycotters were. And again, is it not part of the academic freedom to be able to voice ones feelings in such matters?

NTNU is generally seen as a very conservative university, mainly due to NTHs roots as a university college with a pure technological profile. Especially the student mass is known for being less radical than say the students in Tromsø, Bergen or Oslo, also due to the fact there are no political lists in the student democracy: Candidates are voted on as singlde candidates, not as members of a “party”, and pragmatism and realpolitik is held as ideals. NTNU is also known as an university where the students have comparatively much power politically compared to the faculty.

It is also worth noting that NTNU has to distinct campuses, one technological (Gløshaugen) and one for the humanities and liberal arts (Dragvoll). The latter have more radical students, but they are less politically active locally.

My thoughts are that Thon was thinking A) why am I providing financial support to a university which offers a one-sided seminar series on Israel which quite obviously is intended to gather support for a subsequent boycott proposal B) why am I supporting a university where a boycott proposal can slip onto the board agenda and is only discovered by chance C) why am I supporting a university which allows a network of organized political extremists to influence it.

There might be other reasons as well, maybe Thon has encountered and questioned similar attitudes from NTNU previously and just thought “enough is enough”.

By the way, there is a letter from a professor up on Universitetsavisa. The professor goes on about how the “Israeli authorities” may “add to the file” about how he is in opposition or some such. It looks like maybe he was in duress while he wrote it but the University newspaper still prints it. Strange.

E.S, what is the political culture like at NTNU? What do you hear people saying?

I am having difficulties understanding your position here. Could you please expand upon it?

Kristian

Thus he is punishing the wrong academic community.

And with a trust fund, a single person would not be able to withdraw support or funding on a whim, it would be a sane and thorough process. Trust funds are ruled by a board, which necessarily will be more conservative and careful in their considerations.

And it is rather sad that a millionaire in this way wants to censor all academics at an university. If he had withdrawn support AFTER a boycott was voted for in the board, I could understand it, but here he does this BEFORE the board even have a vote on the matter, which is against all democratic procedure! :)

As for trust funds to de-politicise academia, how would that prevent Thon from declining to give any more money?

The boycotters weren’t interested in research.

They held and hold pre-judiced views which means they already decided on the meaning of whatever it was they were researching.

The problem here isn’t the source of funding, it’s the non scientific it’s the prejudice of the “researchers.”

How can any research be unbiased if the researcher must make sure he or she does not offend the benefactor? One way to ensure this is of course to establish trust funds, where the grants are distributed free of restraints, and where not a single individual can control the grants, or remove them if he or she doesn’t like the results of the research.

For a bit of sombre fact we can pop over to NTNU’s university newspaper - Universitetsavisa. This newspaper has 1) previously questioned the fuss over the boycott proposal, pointing to how NTNU practically does not cooperate with Israel anyway and 2) placed an anti-boycott activist under scrutiny for daring to request a peek at the list of boycott-signatories (it turned out to have disappeared).

Right now Universitetsavisa’s take on Olav Thon’s divestment from NTNU is that it just goes to show how universities should not be dependent on handouts from private individuals to start with.

On Saturday, NTNU rector Digernes had a letter in Aftenposten where he defended the seminar-series on the Israel-Palestine conflict and glossed over the matter of the boycott proposal in general.

Events such as these indicate that some very central people are reluctant to learn much from the entire affair. Which means that whoever we are and whatever it is that we do, we will have to keep up the good work for a good long while yet.