There are several ways in which to deal with criticism. One it bend over backwards in agreeing, as in: “You are right and I was wrong. Sorry.” Another is to deal with the criticism seriously, as in: “Well, I’ll stick to my guns when it concerns argument E and F, but I am willing to hear you out on the points of C and G.” A third way is to reject all of the criticism entirely, as in: “I’m right and you’re wrong so f*** you!”
NTNU now seems to use both the latter, a little of each.
Journalist Tore Oksholmen covers NTNU’s response to the critizism in the article “Hard attacks on dean” in Universitetsavisa.
Member of the organizing committee behind the seminar-series Morten Levin states: “I was prepared for reactions, but not that they would be so comprehensive. But we are dealing with strong forces, who are engaged in an organized and systematic endeavour to strangle all public debate.”
Now these are large words. “Strong forces?” Who are these strong forces, and how does it make any sense to call them strong? Where are they? Is this blog a “strong force”, or perhaps part of a larger conspiracy? To the best of our knowledge we have never ever strangled a single debate. We couldn’t strangle a kitten if we wanted to. If only the journalist had asked for proof of these mysterious forces, perhaps we would have known more. As it stands there is only an accusation. At what point do unfounded allegations qualify to the status of a conspiracy theory, one might ask.
As for the good dean Torbjørn Digernes, Universitetsavisa provides a short Q&A session:
-A person at the Israeli embassy has written a letter where he critizises you for supporting a “biased and one-sided” seminar series. What is your reply to critizism like this?
- “I made myself clear regarding the premisses for supporting the series in my previous letter to Universitetsavisa. NTNU is to be a free academic institution, where academics are to be able to present their findings within a field based on the standards of academic discourse – where documentation and verifiablility are central premisses. Implicitly this means that if other of our staff desire to invite colleagues to illuminate this conflict from any other thematic perspective, based on this standard, they will have the opportunity to do so.”
Thus, it appears that NTNU is willing to open its doors to the likes of Benny Morris and Alan Dershowhich – provided there is an NTNU employee there to invite them.
Let’s hope that there is. Otherwise, NTNU students will get only one side of the story.
Recent Comments