The link is not only between engineering education and Islamist extremism, but also with neo-Nazis, white power groups and neo-Stalinists. Engineers lack mental openness, are drawn to order and clarity, and are disgusted by the deviant.

Truly astonishing data. Like recently when a study at the University of Gothenburg showed that out of 300 young men sentenced to prison, mainly for violent offences, a majority had some form of psychiatric or neuropsychiatric diagnosis, 40 per cent had ADHD. A few years ago, Uppdrag granskning showed that of all those convicted of rape in the last five years, 58 per cent were foreign-born. That review included 843 perpetrators.

It’s stumblingly close that just as Gina Gustavsson believes that a majority of all engineers are potential terrorists, most people with ADHD or autism must reasonably be particularly prone to violence and foreign-born men can be assumed to be particularly predisposed to rape. If you reduce immigration, lock up people with ADHD at an early age and stop training engineers, you will have fewer violent crimes and fewer terrorists!

It’s a bit of a head scratcher. On the editorial and debate pages, you can of course think what you like, but surely it would be wise to have some logic in the arguments put forward. We can all agree that more of a social perspective and traditional education may be required in engineering programmes, as in all other education, but to conclude that engineering education as such breeds terrorism is nothing but qualified nonsense.

One wishes that those who defend the humanities and social sciences had better friends than DN’s editorial page!

In practice, the model means that the funds allocated by the government and the parliament for universities to conduct education and research are returned to the state through the surplus profits generated by the rental model.

Right now, we are stuck in an economic stranglehold that effectively sucks the energy out of the universities’ activities, as I wrote about in a post https://www.kth.se/blogs/president/2024/05/enough-is-enough/ a few weeks ago. But, for the reform-minded and progressive politician looking for a basis to shape a new solution for premises provision, there are several ways to go.

One relatively simple measure that should be implemented immediately is to change the ownership directive for Akademiska Hus so that a cost-based rental model replaces the current market-based model. A variant of this change is to retain market-based rents but to return the funds received from state-owned Akademiska Hus back to the higher education policy area within the framework of the government budget.

A variant of this change is to retain market-based rents but to return the funds received from the state-owned Akademiska Hus back to the higher education policy area within the framework of the state budget. One of these two measures needs to be implemented immediately, no later than the 2025 budget, to ensure that the university sector is not forced into the abyss of eroded funding and increased rents. At the same time, the rent increases of recent years should be compensated through targeted funding for universities and colleges.

In the longer term, the entire current model should be scrapped. As long as authorities cannot own their own properties, the properties currently owned by Akademiska Hus should be transferred to foundations linked to the respective higher education institutions, which should also have control over the foundation’s operations. In this way, rents can be set either on a cost basis or in line with the market, with surplus profits being returned via the foundation controlled by the university.

I realise that those who are against change can find many arguments against change, but I am equally convinced that those who want to see change can find their way through the regulations so that we can have a reasonable and business-like model for managing the accommodation needs of universities. It is time to address this. It is time for responsible politicians to recognise what is currently the greatest threat to the universities’ activities and, by extension, to the supply of skills for Swedish society and for the country’s long-term competitiveness.

Being part of a global world means that geopolitical conflicts are also discussed and, as we have now learnt, that such conflicts also give rise to loud protests and tent camps on campus. What has already happened in many other countries is now also a reality in Sweden.

It is important to emphasize and understand that it is not our role to take a stand in geopolitical conflicts; KTH must be free from political positions. The government is responsible for Swedish foreign policy. We will therefore not take any position on the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Free co-operation between academic institutions is part of the open society and also part of the freedom enjoyed by researchers and teachers. From time to time, we have such collaborations in regions where there are wars or conflicts, and in many cases it is precisely then that it is important to allow academic dialogue to take place. Today we have an agreement with an Israeli university. There is no activity within the framework of that agreement and we see no reason to reconsider this at the moment. In other words, there is no exchange.

I and many others at KTH have received signals, in many different channels, that people feel uneasy and uncomfortable with the protests in the courtyard that have been going on since last week and the demonstration held on 21 May.

Our assessment of the situation on our campus and how the protests should be handled is based on the police’s assessment, and we are continuously monitoring events and are in contact with other higher education institutions that are currently experiencing the same types of protests on their campuses. The perceived insecurity and intimidation that some of our students and staff are experiencing is juxtaposed with the constitutional right to freely express their views.

Academic freedom and freedom of expression are essential to a democracy and must be defended again and again. But at the same time, this freedom does not mean that everyone should think the same or that one side should be forced to think the same as another.

Employees and students who remain silent out of discomfort or even fear are devastating for a university. A free search for knowledge, exchange of ideas and respect for each other is the foundation of KTH. Even in these challenging times, we must hold on to these values.

KTH supports the statement issued by the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions (SUHF) in response to the war between Israel and Hamas. suhf.se/om-suhf/nyheter/ (in Swedish)

But enough is enough. Rent increases of 20 per cent in two years cannot be compensated for by reduced use of premises, and the reduced use of premises will not be translated into reduced costs until the day the contracts can be terminated, and the contracts cannot be terminated until we have succeeded in consolidating vacant space to such an extent that we can vacate large parts of certain buildings or entire blocks of buildings. This takes time. Like the fox caught in the fox scissors, we will soon be gnawing on its legs. By the way, fox scissors are banned!

There is a need for an emergency commission to develop sustainable alternatives for the provision of university premises. A starting point must be that universities do not operate in a market; in a market, buyers and sellers can choose whether to do business with each other. We, as universities, have no choice in our premises provision and our premises cannot be used for anything else. In a market, the buyer can pass on its increased costs to its customers. We have no such options. When the state-owned Akademiska Hus raises rents, the state as financier does not react at all – by compensating our increased costs.

In a market, companies can be closed down, moved abroad, sold or merged to create better long-term conditions. We have only one option when the state-owned Akademiska Hus raises rents by 20 per cent in two years and the state as financier does not react: we must cut costs. And we are doing that, but enough is enough. The foxhole has closed. We are stuck.

We are part of the higher education policy area. What is needed now is a policy that understands what is happening and takes responsibility for a new model and, in the meantime, compensates us for the increased costs of recent years. The money is available through the share dividends that Akademiska Hus has delivered to the state and if that is not enough, the owner can always bring home a little more from their balance sheet. Enough is enough!

I have had the opportunity to visit technical universities in both countries on a couple of occasions this spring and last year.

It is always difficult to compare the situation in different countries. The systems and conditions for universities differ so much that it is not possible to compare figures directly. But, despite this, we can still reflect on some of the differences between us.

In Switzerland, the state owns the buildings and the universities use them without paying rent, but on the other hand they have to pay for maintenance, renovation and new construction. Unlike the pretend market with huge profits for property owners that has been created for the provision of premises for Swedish universities, the system in Switzerland is based on a model where the universities are responsible for the actual costs of the properties.

In Sweden, universities are severely plagued by the current model where we not only pay the costs of property management, but are also forced to contribute to surplus profits and share dividends that go back to the state.

In the Netherlands, there is a well-developed cooperation between universities on the one hand, and between universities and the government on the other, which enables joint work on problem solving and development, for example in the work on responsible internationalisation or through the development of quality systems for higher education. We have good collaboration between universities in Sweden as well, but not really in a way that allows us to jointly shape solutions for the future with politics.

Switzerland and the Netherlands still have the system whereby a degree obtained at an earlier stage in the education system gives access to higher education. This is similar to the system of matriculation examinations that we had in Sweden until the late 1960s. Universities thus have no control over the number of students coming to the various programmes, but must accept all those who come – resulting in a high drop-out rate in the first year.

In Sweden, our system provides great opportunities to dimension and shape the supply strategically and in the long term within the framework of a relatively large autonomy for the universities. In comparison with Switzerland and the Netherlands, this autonomy is a major advantage.

However, what remains in the memory after the visits is the funding model. The majority of research is funded by basic funding and a smaller proportion by competitive grants – unlike the situation in Sweden – which means that academic staff have a more secure position.

Universities also receive one single funding for research and education, as opposed to the rather artificial division into two separate grants that we have. In addition, the funding levels are much more generous than in Sweden.

What is most important, however, is that we have developing co-operation and exchanges with our friends in both Switzerland and the Netherlands. Together, we can help solve the problems of the future through both research and education. After all, even if the systems are different, we find many opportunities for co-operation through jointly formulated research questions.