New calls for constitutional protection of academic freedom

A new campaign to have academic freedom enshrined in the Norwegian constitution has been launched by the Norwegian Association of Researchers and the National Union of Students in Norway (NSO) with support from some of the country’s top scientists.

Under the slogan “Let research be free!” the campaign asks supporters to sign an online petition that states: “Free and independent research and knowledge dissemination are a prerequisite for our democracy and for us to be able to develop a better society.”

The petition, launched on 11 March and endorsed by Nobel Prize winners Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser, had over 950 signatories by 17 March.

The petition argues that researchers must be able to “determine their own approach, draw conclusions and publish results without pressure or outside interference. Knowledge must be verifiable and as open as possible.

“Freedom of science must also apply to the research-based teaching on which Norwegian higher education is based. Academic freedom is a prerequisite for academic development and for students to acquire the competence that society needs”.

It goes on to say that freedom of research is under increasing pressure, especially internationally, with the Academic Freedom Index showing that “more than half of the world’s population lives in countries where academic freedom is very limited”.

While the situation was “different” in Norway, it said economic guidelines, governance requirements and anti-scientific trends could challenge free research. “We have seen in other countries that the situation can change quickly,” the petition states.

Academic freedom in Norway is currently regulated in the Universities and Colleges Act, which can be amended by a simple majority in the Parliament (Storting).

The campaign argues that enshrining academic freedom in the constitution "would send an important signal about the freedom of research, better protect free research from political fluctuations, and protect research outside universities and college campuses".

Parliamentary representatives from nine parties will consider a proposal submitted in 2024 to that effect by two representatives of the Socialist Left Party (SV).

The proposal presents three, differently worded, alternatives: 1) State authorities shall respect the freedom necessary for scientific research; 2) Freedom of science shall be respected; 3) State authorities shall facilitate the conditions for free scientific research.

In an article published in Khrono on 11 March, President of the Norwegian Association of Researchers Steinar A Sæther and President of NSO Sigve Næss Røtvold argue that the “time has come to give free science stronger protection” and call on the parliament to “come together across ideology and party lines in support of a cornerstone of Norwegian democracy”.

They say that while Norway is not currently one of the countries in which academic freedoms are restricted, “we are not protected from the international anti-democratic trends that are increasing the pressure on free science either”.

“By elevating academic freedom into the Constitution, we are building a defence that is more difficult to tear down,” they argue.

Speaking to University World News, Sæther said a lot had happened since the constitutional proposal was voted down [during a process of constitutional reforms] in Norway in 2014.

“Free science is under pressure in an increasing number of countries, including countries with strong democratic traditions. Now academic freedom needs a stronger defence, and we hope that the politicians in parliament see that. This is not primarily about us researchers but about the fact that the whole of society depends on trust in research if democracy is to function.”

Hans Morten Haugen, a professor at VID Specialized University and an expert in human rights who has published in the area of academic freedom, said he supports the inclusion of academic freedom in the Norwegian Constitution.

All three alternatives in the current proposal before parliament apply to researchers as such, which is important, he said.

“Norway’s Human Rights Act incorporated from its entry into force in 1999 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

“Section 2 of the Act reads: ‘The provisions of the conventions and protocols mentioned in section 2 shall take precedence over any other legislative provisions that conflict with them.’ Hence, Article 15(3) of the ICESCR – specifying that states ‘undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity’ – has a high legislative status in Norway,” Haugen said.

Haugen noted that “creative activity” is not included in any of the three alternatives, but this should not be an argument against the inclusion of one of the three in the Constitution.

Clear interpretations

Professor Peter Maassen from the University of Oslo, who is coordinating a series of research studies for the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) on academic freedom in EU member states, said he fully agreed with the premise of the campaign to strengthen protection of academic freedom.

“Enshrining academic freedom in the constitution could be the necessary step to achieve such strengthening,” he said.

“At the same time, it is important that the campaign is clear and consistent in its interpretation of academic freedom. In the campaign it seems that academic freedom and the freedom of scientific research (or scientific freedom) are regarded as synonyms, which raises both legal and conceptual issues,” he added.

Maassen said that one could argue that an inclusion of academic freedom in the Norwegian constitution in the interpretation of scholars such as Metzger, Kovács and Spannagel, and the case law of the two European Courts, would not necessarily strengthen the protection of researchers in non-academic settings.

“On the other hand, an inclusion of the freedom of scientific research in the constitution might not strengthen the protection of the freedom to teach, to learn and study and the freedom of academic expression.

“Therefore, I hope that the initiators of the campaign will be open for a discussion to clarify which freedom they are asking the Norwegian politicians to enshrine in the constitution: academic freedom, the freedom of scientific research (or scientific freedom) or both,” Maassen said.

Danish challenges

Brian Arly Jacobsen, an associate professor in the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and chair of DM University, a union for academic professionals who was one of the Danish authors of a 2024 report on academic freedom in the Nordics by academic trade unions, told University World News: academic freedom in Denmark was “generally strong” in terms of international comparison.

“But we also see important challenges. Temporary employment, dependence on external funding, and a more polarised public debate can make it harder – especially for early-career researchers – to conduct their research and communicate their findings freely.”

He said at the same time, there was a “more structural challenge” in the Danish University Act: The highly centralised, single-line management structure concentrates significant authority at the top levels of university leadership while leaving relatively limited room for collegial governance.

“If academic freedom is to be protected in practice, it must first and foremost be secured through clear and robust legislation. Universities must then ensure that this protection is realised in practice by safeguarding researchers against political pressure, improving conditions for early-career researchers, and developing governance structures that support rather than limit independent scholarship,” Arly Jacobsen said.

Finnish protections

Mikko Poutanen, a post-doctoral researcher in political science at Tampere University in Finland who is researching academic freedom, said from a Finnish perspective, university autonomy and academic freedom are covered under legislation.

This includes the Finnish constitution, which states that “universities are self-governing”. It also includes university legislation which states that “universities have autonomy, through which they safeguard the freedom of scientific, artistic and highest form of education”.

University legislation also protects “Freedom of research, art and teaching”.

Under staff employment relations, university legislation also states that the employer may not act in the employment relationship in a manner which may endanger the freedom of research, art or education referred to in section 6 (above) and declares that the employment contract of an employee belonging to the research and teaching staff of a university may not be terminated or cancelled on grounds that could be invoked and infringe on the freedom of research, art or education.

He said attempts by his Norwegian colleagues to put academic freedom protections into the constitution showed “a commitment to liberal democratic values”.

His only limited concern, he said, was that “academic freedom is sometimes also used by conservative free speech-activists for legitimising offensive speech, and this is an issue the university community is somewhat divided on”.

He added: “Some argue that the university should be a place for debates and ‘dangerous thinking’, without any censorship, while others argue that critical thinking doesn’t require forceful and excluding rhetoric, which often closes more perspectives than it opens. Both arguments can be seen to have merit.

“As a political scientist, I view this through the distinction between liberal democracy and democracy as majoritarian decision-making. To put it bluntly, liberal democracy argues for a multitude of voices and opinions, which are offered openly, constructively, and above all, respectfully (especially vis-à-vis human rights and dignity).

“Conversely, a majority of a democratic polity can elect to take away voting or civil rights from any arbitrary majority.”

Poutanen said that while having democracy in itself was valuable, democracy was defined by its values (liberal vs illiberal and postliberal). “The same applies to free speech on campuses as part of academic freedom,” he added.

“The spillover effect of the Trump administration – meaning research in co-operation with the US – shows how fragile academic freedom can be internationally when faced with determined ideological attacks. So far international partners to US academics have understood that they should not capitulate. I hope that holds,” Poutanen said.

Sector unity in Sweden

In Sweden, the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (SACO) also supported the push for better protection for academic freedom in late 2025.

Noting SACO’s support, Sanna Wolk, president of the Association of University Teachers and Researchers (SULF) said: “The entire academy sector now stands with us in this important issue for Swedish education and research.

“The fact that SACO now supports the demand for broader constitutional protection makes SULF stronger. We will jointly continue to press for the form of government to be supplemented so that not only research but also education and the autonomy of higher education institutions are given robust protection.”

Wolk noted: “This work requires perseverance and broad political courage. The message is clear: academic freedom is not a special interest for universities and colleges but a prerequisite for an open and resilient society and a democratic pillar.

“That is why SULF will continue to be on the move, in the corridors of the Riksdag [parliament], in the media and out at our higher education institutions. With SACO’s congressional decision behind us, we stand stronger than ever in the work for a free and independent academy.”