Response to interpellation 2024/25:396 on ideologies within Swedish higher education institutions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that academic freedom is fundamental for quality and democracy 1 and wants to strengthen its protection 1. L wants to renovate teacher education with a focus on authority and higher admission requirements, as well as protect universities against the influence of foreign powers. L emphasizes that equality work is reasonable 2 and that the freedom of the mass media is crucial 3. SD argues that academic freedom must have limits 4 and that teacher education contains left-radical sludge 5. SD considers woke ideology to be indoctrination 4 and wants Sweden not to resemble American universities that produce activists. S argues that the government has prioritized the economy over academic freedom 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Josef Fransson has asked me how extensive I believe the concept of academic freedom should be and whether this, for example, should be able to accommodate teaching in extreme and totalitarian ideologies. He has also asked me whether I consider that what is stated about the woke ideology growing within Swedish higher education institutions is in any way problematic and whether I intend to take any actions from my standpoint. He has additionally asked me how I will work regarding such things as woke ideology, cancel culture, and antisemitism at Swedish higher education institutions.
The government's goal is that education and research at universities and colleges shall maintain a high quality in an international perspective and be conducted efficiently. Academic freedom is fundamental for this to be achieved and an important component in a democratic and strong society. It must be promoted and protected.
In the Higher Education Act (1992:1434), it is established that as general principles for research, research problems may be chosen freely, research methods may be developed freely, and research results may be published freely. In the same provision, it is stated that as a general principle for the universities' activities, academic freedom shall be promoted and protected. This covers both research and education.
Academic freedom and the freedom of research mean, in particular, that researchers themselves choose the questions to research. The principle implies that the research that holds the highest quality is prioritized, regardless of the research problem's weight or popularity. Scientific progress requires that knowledge can be sought freely as well as that research results can be shared and discussed openly without reprisals and thus be tested within the framework of scientific and professional standards.
The Government gave the Swedish Council for Higher Education the assignment to, among other things, conduct case studies in order to provide a deeper understanding of the work of universities and colleges in promoting and safeguarding academic freedom. The agency's report states, among other things, that approximately half of the surveyed teachers, researchers, and doctoral students believe that academic freedom at Swedish higher education institutions is challenged. The report shows that there is a continued need to strengthen and protect academic freedom at Swedish higher education institutions. The Government has therefore announced that it intends to assign an investigator to, among other things, propose measures to strengthen the protection of academic freedom for teachers and researchers at Swedish higher education institutions. The work on this assignment is ongoing within the Government Offices.
The overall requirements for higher education are set out in law and regulation. The higher education institutions determine how the educations shall be designed and what content the courses shall have in order for the requirements to be met. That the profession determines the more detailed design is a prerequisite for high quality in higher education.
Education in higher education contributes to cultivation and to individual development, social engagement and critical thinking. Universities and colleges have an important responsibility to organize and develop their activities to achieve high quality in education, strengthen the competence supply for the labor market's needs and ensure that resources are utilized effectively. The institutions' autonomy and academic freedom are prerequisites for high quality in education and research, and these principles shall be protected.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Education Minister Johan Pehrson, for the answer – or the non-answer, one might say, as the Minister avoids my actual questions with almost surgical precision.
Madam Speaker! When we Sweden Democrats criticized the government and Chalmers University of Technology for the introduction of a DEI Office, where the newly appointed DEI officer is supposed to drill future engineers in so-called intersectional analysis, the Minister for Education referred to academic freedom. I will not put words in the Minister's mouth, but I interpret this as the Minister not thinking that either the Minister themselves or we Members of Parliament should have opinions on this. I do, however, take the liberty of having opinions on this, and it is, I believe, both reasonable and urgent.
If by academic freedom one means the right for researchers, teachers, and students to freely conduct research, teach, publish, and discuss ideas without undue influence from the state, I agree. But I want to point out in this context that it actually concerns tax-funded activities and that taxpayers certainly have certain expectations regarding the purpose of universities and colleges, for example, to educate students, promote research, promote critical thinking, contribute to the development of society, and preserve and disseminate knowledge.
I mean, however, that the concept of academic freedom has and must have limits. It is primarily this that I want to discuss with the Minister for Education here today. Does the Minister for Education also believe that academic freedom should have limits? Where, in that case, should these limits be drawn?
I mean, namely, that there is an enormous difference between studying extreme and totalitarian doctrines and teaching them. To study an ideology means that one teaches about its content, history, development, and impact on society through a critical and objective overview. To teach an ideology, on the other hand, means that one actively tries to transfer the ideology's values, principles, and convictions to the students and indoctrinate them to adopt it.
Woke ideology in the university world is about exactly this. And the previously mentioned DEI Office at Chalmers University of Technology is about this. One does not strive for world-class engineers who can tackle technical challenges in a global market where the competition is steel-hard, but instead, one wants to produce activists for a left-radical worldview that aims at the idea that society is permeated by structural racism and oppression. This goes, I believe, against liberal ideals and is instead about suppressing critical thinking – to shape students and teachers to stop thinking for themselves.
Even though the concept of woke is not fully defined, it is used in reference to the left's so-called norm criticism and when people are graded through the aforementioned intersectional analyses, where people accumulate victim status based on such as skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, obesity, religion and so on. The starting point is simply that society is permeated by precisely structural racism and oppression and that people are either perpetrators or victims. The injustices shall then be broken down so that those with high victim status are given priority to, for example, jobs, education and positions of power.
Is this something the Minister for Education thinks we should have at the higher education institutions? Does the Minister for Education consider that this falls within the concept of academic freedom? On this, Madam Speaker, I hope we can get an answer.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! Surveys show very clearly that academia itself sees the threat to academic freedom as coming from politics. It is really not strange when the government relies on a party that constantly and continuously challenges academic freedom. It is a government that overnight changes the process for appointing board members at the universities.
The government's only response to this is to talk about changing the organizational form of the country's educational institutions. Therefore, I want to alert the entire chamber that this does not remove the threat. Academic freedom is threatened when the Sverigedemokraterna interfere with what is done at Chalmers, even if the organizational form is not an agency but instead a foundation university. The organizational form therefore does not make academic freedom either more or less present.
Academic freedom is based on the fact that we have sensible politicians who neither themselves nor, through collaborations or budget collaborations with other parties, open up to interfering in the direction of academic research and higher education studies.
Ultimately, this is about the fact that it is a party in Sweden's Riksdag that collaborates on the budget with the government that decides how much money different educational institutions shall receive for research and education – a party that has clear, ideologically driven opinions on what research and what education should be conducted at the educational institutions.
My question to the Minister for Education is, of course: What does he intend to do to remove this threat to academic freedom to show that the government in Sweden stands free from that type of influence when the budget is being drawn up? Or should all the country's higher education institutions in every budget process have to be afraid of being punished because the Sverigedemokraterna do not like their research or education and thus risk receiving fewer resources?
The answer lies with the government. Why is one cooperating with a party that does not respect academic freedom?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Every four years, general elections are held in Sweden. After the elections, the parties are expected to want to contribute to solving Sweden's significant social problems – ranging from the uncertainty that has existed regarding threats from outside and threats from within, an energy policy that is non-functional, an investment policy that led to investments not coming to Sweden and that jobs remained absent, the long healthcare queues that exist – and to handle major economic problems.
For the Liberals and the government, it is important to focus on the facts: to solve the problems. In that case, one must enter into different forms of cooperation to have a majority in the Swedish Riksdag. This entails that one naturally must cooperate between parties that stand far apart from each other.
In response to Åsa Westlund, I can say that it is no secret that the Liberals have different ideological starting points than the Sweden Democrats. We also have different ideological starting points than the Social Democrats. But now we stand here.
Let me now turn to Josef Fransson, who has interpellated.
I work to preserve the freedom that exists here in the Swedish Riksdag where Josef Fransson, Åsa Westlund, or I myself are allowed to think whatever we want. It is very important. It can be as stupid as possible or as brilliant as possible – often it is somewhere in between. This is important to defend.
It is important to defend the courts' independence from political power. This is not done in any other way than by us enacting laws, usually by the government submitting proposals to the Riksdag, and the Riksdag making the final decision. Then we know what is permitted, what is not permitted, and what the consequences will be if the law is broken. It is about political freedom and the independence of the courts.
To this, one must add the mass media's freedom to write exactly what they want. Often one gets to read somewhat odd opinions, I think, but that is the whole idea with democracy and the mass media's freedom.
Madam Speaker! To this also comes academic freedom. It means that people in this chamber for more than a hundred years have considered a lot of things that are researched to be very strange: Oh, oh, this is uncomfortable. Should one really go ahead with this? Should one really go ahead with research on Swedish nuclear energy? No, we should not invest any money in that. And if one says that it should be a primary goal, there are always some who think it is strange and some who think it is good.
The government and the Riksdag govern through the budget and various forms of prioritization, for example in the research and innovation bill. There is a very large debate ongoing about this, because we are investing in quality over quantity. Otherwise, there will be interpellations here in the chamber from members who think it is an incorrect balance. And that is how it should be.
The universities also have to work to follow legislation, and non-discrimination is important. If Sweden is to manage in the future, the best must come to the universities. Not least, it is the best who must become engineers to manage Sweden's future and the great challenges we face. In that case, it is reasonable to work with, for example, equality, because at least half of the talent – sorry for you and me, Josef Fransson! – belongs to women.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I can begin by addressing this with the independence of the courts. We are, of course, in complete agreement that the courts must be free from political influence. But when we as elected representatives are dissatisfied with the judges – for example, when it concerns how long prison sentences are handed out – we can change the legislation. Johan Pehrson knows that. Then the judges get a new piece of legislation to adhere to, and it is no more strange than that one can do the same in other areas as well.
In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to say a little about what future teachers at the University of Gothenburg are expected to take with them into the teaching of our children. I have, in fact, seen a slide show from a course named Sexuality, Consent and Relationships. One can really ask oneself if this is what future teachers need for their teaching of our children. I would also like to know if the Minister for Education considers this to fall within the concept of academic freedom.
I will try to summarize. Under the heading The gender norm, the student teachers are told that they should counteract heteronormativity, that the gender norm renders non-binary people invisible and that one thus fails to represent reality. For this reason, one should avoid dividing into girl and boy groups in school work. One should also use gender-neutral language and not label students if one does not know their pronouns.
Regarding transsexuality, the future teachers shall learn to have a critical eye on the debate about trans care and take with them arguments to counter those who dare to question the so-called gender-affirming care of youth.
Under the heading Homonationalism, teachers are to learn that, for example, the Sweden Democrats – the party to which I myself belong – exploit queer people and the hbtqi struggle as a battering ram against other groups in order to portray these as primitive, backward-looking, and less open. This is therefore included in the education. And naturally, they are also to learn that this happens without us having any real concern for hbtqi-plus persons.
The lecturer also notes that without an anti-racist perspective, there is a risk that the teaching becomes exclusionary and irrelevant or that it reinforces racism. This is said at the same time as one argues that teachers should challenge the norm of whiteness, if that is not racism.
Under the heading Pinkwashing, which is described as a sales strategy without real social commitment to the group one claims to fight for, the student teachers are taught that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu engages in this when he presents Israel as a gay-friendly, progressive, and democratic country that protects human rights. The lecturer considers this problematic, as it contributes to countering the image of Israel as an occupying power with an apartheid system that violates human rights.
Furthermore, the student teachers are told that the norm of togetherness is something bad. It is based on monogamy and has a strong connection to the heterosexual nuclear family. Therefore, it is important that teachers bring in such things as non-monogamy, polyamory, and open relationships.
She speaks about incels, the involuntarily celibate. She means that they are misogynistic and racist antisemites who carry conspiracy theories shaped by hatred towards women's independence.
Regarding honor-related violence and oppression, one should not assume that it only exists within certain ethnicities or cultures. It has to do with gender.
I do not have time to read out all the interesting passages that are in this presentation, but I will hand over a copy to Johan Pehrson. Then he can take it home to the chamber and see if this is something our teachers should take out into society. It is left-radical muck, frankly.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! It was clear in the Minister for Education's answer here that there were other, more important issues to care about after the election than academic freedom or, for that matter, the freedom of the media. It is a rather strange reasoning. This belongs to the core of democratic values – academic freedom and the freedom of the media. Both of these are being attacked systematically by the Sverigedemokraterna.
The Minister for Education also claims that the government or his own party opted out of these values because the situation was so bad regarding Sweden's economy. Growth was poor, unemployment was high, and the crimes were serious in our country.
How did it go then with those questions? One might wonder. Yes, the economy is even worse now. We have extremely poor growth compared to other countries. We have very high unemployment. And unfortunately, this government has not either managed to tackle organized crime.
Was it really the case that one had to choose? Furthermore, one then failed in what was considered the prioritized task. Could the Liberals actually have chosen a completely different alternative, which would not have questioned the foundation of democracy and which would have delivered better growth and more jobs, but not the large tax cuts that the Liberals always, always prioritize when it comes down to it?
When it comes to the fight against organized crime, we have exactly the same views. We voted together when it came to toughening the penalties and taking measures against organized crime.
What sets us apart is that we Social Democrats do not cut back on schools at the same time as the gangs are trying to recruit. We believe, in fact, that it feeds and favors their recruitment.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! I look forward to receiving this document from Josef Fransson, who has submitted an interpellation. It is clear that regardless of what I take note of in the open, free country of Sweden – it is one of the world's freest countries, and so it shall remain – I also think things are strange. But then one has to work with it.
We talked about the teacher education. We are in the process of changing the teacher education. It is about having fewer goals and about ensuring that we tighten up and have an increased focus in the teacher education on issues concerning how one teaches in the classroom. It is about how teachers receive their great and important normal authority in a classroom so that there is order and discipline in the class and so that everyone gets to learn to read, write, and count early and gets a chance in the future for their own sake and for Sweden's sake. Therefore, we shall renovate, change, and strengthen the Swedish teacher education. Among other things, requirements for admission are being raised, so that it becomes a very, very good education.
But it is well clear that in the teacher education one must also talk about honor-related violence and oppression and also speak about the fact that it exists in several places. It is not just that people have come to Sweden or other parts of the world who have brought with them, as I usually say, a more medieval cultural orientation. We also had that in Sweden until a hundred years ago, when we finally introduced democracy and women also got to go and vote. There were people sitting in Sweden who thought that men should decide. We have made an enormous journey; we must safeguard that.
There is also honor-related violence and oppression in other cultures from other parts of the world, and it exists in Sweden. Hear and behold! This is what Swedish research concludes when looking at violence against and oppression of women.
Then I turn to Åsa Westlund. We went to the election and were clear that we must replace the Social Democrats, because they had a policy that absolutely did not have an answer to a single question. Then it is another matter that Åsa Westlund has politically sobered up in the chamber.
First, one was against the migration policy. Then, one was against the integration policy. One was against the crime policy, because one said that it would mean that one would introduce Hungary. Sweden was on its way to being de-democratized. Long tracts were written about this in free media from the Social Democrats. But then the Social Democrats changed their opinion. Now, one is for a different migration policy than the one one pursued in government for eight years. One is for a different integration policy, and one is for a completely different crime policy.
The criticism that the Liberals, and the current government, had was that nothing was happening. If we are to tackle the gangs, we must move forward with preventive measures and get the school to function. It is the school we have today that causes Sweden's knowledge results to fall and students to be sidelined. But the Social Democrats did nothing about this during eight years.
Madam Speaker! That one reviewed the competence requirements regarding security in the boards of Sweden's universities and higher education institutions is nothing strange. Now we have done it. It is absolutely no problem. That we shall safeguard and protect the universities in Sweden against the influence of foreign powers, I think is completely obvious.
Finally: We are also working on producing an inquiry to review academic freedom as a whole and what can be done further to strengthen it.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I want to stay here. Are there really no limits to academic freedom? I do not believe that neither Johan Pehrson nor Åsa Westlund think that there are not. If it were teachers who tried to indoctrinate students in other totalitarian ideologies, such as Nazism, Fascism, or Islamism, I believe that all of us in this chamber would be in full agreement that the universities cannot engage in that.
But when it comes to communism, socialism and woke ideology – it perhaps should actually be said to be one and the same, a kind of neo-communism – it is suddenly okay. Why is it okay?
It is an enormous difference – I say it again – between studying extreme and totalitarian ideologies and teaching them. This is an extreme and totalitarian doctrine even if it is dressed in very beautiful clothes.
I really hope that we can address this in the long run. We cannot have it like in the Ivy League universities in the USA. They no longer produce capable people who enter professional life. They produce activists. The students come out dumber than when they went in. They receive indoctrination training for a few years. Then they come out and are dumber than when they came in. So we shall not have that.
We must address this, because I see tendencies that this is coming from the USA and growing in the Swedish higher education institutions. That we cannot agree that these totalitarian teachings do not belong here and that our teachers should not be taught in them, I find regrettable and, above all, strange. But, as said, Johan Pehrson shall receive this presentation. Then he can form his own opinion.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! I must return to the importance of people being allowed to freely choose their political representatives. After this, Swedish democracy shall function, with the pain that I, Josef Fransson and others here in the chamber must bear by having to find solutions for Sweden.
I am here for Sweden's sake. I am here to make Sweden one of the absolutely sharpest knowledge nations and to ensure that more people get good opportunities to use their own power and contribute to building Sweden. I know, however, that there are no political possibilities to help a young person who has not finished school through deductions, grants, and all possible support systems.
I want those who continue their studies at universities and colleges to be well-prepared so that the educational institutions – if the students have not taken it with them from upper secondary school, which sadly happens to be the case according to testimonies from quite a few educational institutions – can avoid having amounts of remedial teaching in how to read or in other ways of acquiring academic education. That is why I am here.
The freedom to vote is crucial. When it comes to the courts, Josef Fransson is right in that we do change the law if we think the penalties are too harsh or too low. This also applies if the police need new tools to combat crime.
Freedom of the mass media is crucial. We do not interfere with what they write. DN and Aftonbladet are allowed to write what they want. Samnytt writes so much strange stuff, but, you know, one just has to refrain from reading it. It is a free country. We are not forced to read all the rubbish that exists. But we must be critically thinking, and this is shaped in the universities.
I will receive that document from Josef Fransson and look at it. I look forward to continued debates.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.