I co-authored two new debate pieces this week, one on university democracy, where Vigdis Broch-Due, who is running for Pro-Rector, was the primary author, and one on the need to improve gender balance at the University of Bergen.

Both are important topics. After all, the main point of electing the university leadership rather than the University Board simply hiring a rector is that the democratic system allows us a space for debate. It’s important to have at least two teams running in order to have a true discussion of important issues in the university – and it’s important that this democratic process is a truly open one and doesn’t slip into corridor politics. I’ve been dismayed before at how decisions are not really made in the meetings, and I certainly want a more open democracy. On the other hand, I remember my grandfather’s advice about how to really get things done in a university, and realise that a lot happens behind the scenes. I’m ten years older than when I wrote that post, and as I grow older, I see people I studied with or knew in my twenties begin to take on positions of power in society in general and at the University. So how does one get things done in a truly democratic fashion?

Gender balance is another very important issue in academia, and over the last couple of weeks we’ve seen how strong the backlash against the (slow) improvements here can be. As Curt Rice wrote in his response to a particularly nasty editorial in Bergens Tidende:

Bergens Tidende writes about equality without touching the idea, before ending with a debate-strangling sentence about a person who “wants more equality” shouldn’t “create suspicion and division”. This reads like imperialistic advice from another era. Bergens Tidende skriver om likestilling uten å berøre tanken, før de avslutter med en debattkvelende formulering om at den som «ønsker mer likestilling» ikke skal «skape mistanke og splid.» Dette fremstår som et imperialistisk råd fra en annen epoke. (The English is my translation and no doubt Curt would have written better English…)

Gender balance at the University of Bergen has improved in the ten years since I finished my PhD here. Then I wrote about the discomfort I felt at only have one female colleague I regularly saw apart from the secretarial staff. Hilde and I are still the only women in Digital Culture (but we’re a small group, six academic staff members) but now our three PhD candidates are women, we have women post.docs. coming through and I have established a much better network with other women academics at UiB. Less than 10% of professors were women then, we have 22% now. Last semester, after presenting alumni plans to the Humanities faculty leadership team (the dean, pro-dean, faculty director and heads of department) and realising they were all grey-haired men except the head of the centre for gender research and the pro-dean, I organised a seminar for all the female academics in our (large, multidisciplinary) department, from PhD students to professors, and just getting to know these thirty women better was invaluable.

The last couple of days hateful comments against women in public debate have been discussed in several media, after a Swedish documentary. Hilde Sandvik at Bergens Tidende wrote about a 14 year old girl who wrote an opinion piece for the newspaper receiving absolutely horrific, violently and sexually aggressive comments. This is not isolated, many, many, many other examples were given. Gunn Hild Lem talks about the fear women are brought up to feel, and how this fear stops us doing things that might expose us to violence and attacks – including participating in public debate. Avoiding walking home alone at night may be sensible (I certainly tell my teenaged daughter not to) but it also stops women from participating in society as men can. But what if the verbal aggression against women who speak in public or take part in debates is also something we (understandably) almost instinctively avoid? What if women avoid positions of leadership or taking part in public debates because of this “passive fear”, just as we avoid walking home alone at night?

I doubt any university professor would stoop to violent comments of the caliber referenced in those articles. But we have so very few women in university leadership, significantly fewer than any other Norwegian university. Only six of 35 heads of department are women, and only one of six deans.

We have to do better. We need a culture where women are encouraged to run for election, and are encouraged to apply for positions as heads of department. We need a culture that sees the need for diversity in leadership and in teaching and research. I’m very happy that my colleagues in Team Atakan agree with this.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.