Manager
The University of Oslo (UiO), Norway’s largest educational establishment, boasts nearly 27,000 students and over 7,000 staff, all supported by a budget exceeding six and a half billion kroner.
In a landscape where accountability is paramount, Universitas stands as a vigilant guardian for the student body, yet time and again, the University of Oslo appears to undermine its own accountability. This is a significant concern for an institution of its stature.
All public entities are legally mandated to provide access to documents upon request unless there’s a compelling reason to withhold them. This includes press inquiries and requests from ordinary students seeking transparency in communication, be it notices, letters, or applications. Typically, these requests should be addressed within three to five working days. Throughout my tenure as editor at Universitas, I can scarcely recall a single instance where UiO adhered to this timeline. In fact, they appear to be at the bottom of the class.
Experts Assert: University of Oslo is Violating the Law
This week, our publication highlights how UiO has repeatedly failed to respond to numerous access requests filed by our editors during the autumn semester. Three legal experts specializing in the Public Information Act assert that such behavior constitutes a clear breach of the law. It is particularly disheartening that the University has only begun addressing these requests after we signaled our intent to take legal action—a situation that speaks volumes about its priorities.
“If they want, they can. They just don’t bother.”
By neglecting their obligations under this unwritten social contract, UiO effectively stifles public discourse regarding campus happenings. Their reluctance to cooperate undermines our mission to represent Oslo’s student community. Responding only when faced with potential public backlash suggests an unsettling disregard for legal compliance. The message is clear: they can choose transparency, but they often opt for silence.
Despite issuing apologies for “failures in internal routines,” the University remains unwilling to engage in dialogue with Universitas. With a communications team numbering 62, one would expect a willingness to defend their stance publicly. Yet, they fall short, opting instead for a brief email response.
Perhaps UiO assumed that a culture of complacency would suffice. However, we refuse to yield, even as we navigate through bureaucratic obstacles that often feel Kafkaesque. Perhaps it’s merely my perspective, but I believe higher standards are expected from an institution rooted in the principles of enlightenment and democracy.