On 4 May, Tor Grande was asked about NTNU’s reaction to “Hussein’s statements” in light of the treatment I received from the same employer. “I do not think the two cases are comparable,” the rector replied briefly. He then stated that the rector was not considering any disciplinary measures against Hussein. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

On 13 May, Grande was then asked why my case and Hussein’s case are two entirely different matters. Grande’s response was that “former rector Gunnar Bovim stated in December 2018 that freedom of expression is a non-negotiable principle, and that the assessments NTNU made at that time were not good enough”. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

Grande ultimately claims that “the subsequent case was not about Eikrem’s exercise of freedom of expression”. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

This is somewhat complicated. Let me remind readers of a few key points. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

But first of all, there is reason to point out that Universitetsavisa also presents an inaccurate account of what happened in my case. That “Eikrem was relieved of his position at NTNU” (4 May 2026) and “Eikrem ultimately had to leave” (13 May 2026) is not factually correct, and the editor of Universitetsavisa knows this perfectly well. One may therefore wonder why it is written in this way. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

A further key piece of information, often conveniently omitted, is that board member Aksel Tjora has revealed that every member of the board rejected dismissal in NTNU’s board meeting on 1 December 2021. NTNU then hastily chose to enter into by far the most expensive settlement in the history of Norwegian academia, with total costs amounting to many millions of kroner. This settlement was not something I wanted; I wished to continue in my ordinary position. But NTNU’s management had a different agenda, namely to save themselves after being completely exposed. To achieve that, they used every means available. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

Now to the claims made by Rector Grande in Universitetsavisa.

It is a pure trick to pretend that the dismissal case of 2020–2021 was entirely unrelated to the events of 2018–2019 concerning my interview with Resett. The suggestion that two such cases should, entirely by coincidence, occur involving the same person within a short period at NTNU is obviously unreasonable. The claim cannot be taken seriously. The cast of characters involved in the matter was also almost identical in both cases, which is telling in itself. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

Despite this, for the sake of argument I shall accept Grande’s presentation of the case and look only at what happened in 2020–2021. The matter that Grande claims had nothing to do with freedom of expression. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

The fact is that I do not even need to argue my own position. I can simply refer to NTNU’s own documents in the case from 2020–2021. All documents issued by NTNU clearly show that everything concerned expressions, namely those that a media outlet incorrectly attributed to me. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}

The case documents show that NTNU consistently argued at the time that these statements, alleged to be mine, required the institution to take action. Their lawyers provided detailed justifications for this, referring to it as NTNU’s “legitimate interest”. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}

All of this is the exact opposite of what Grande says.

And what did NTNU do? It engaged external lawyers to investigate me, accessed my email correspondence (something that the Norwegian Data Protection Authority later found to be unlawful), and issued several press releases about the status of the case. And so on. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}

All because NTNU claimed that it had to determine what I, an employee, had expressed. Even readers who have followed the case only casually must have noticed this. It has also been reported in numerous newspaper articles, so the details are hardly unknown. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}

The course of action adopted by NTNU in 2020–2021 was quite different from its handling of the Bassam Hussein case. The rector’s fine words that “freedom of expression is a non-negotiable principle” at NTNU are plainly inconsistent with the actual practice of NTNU, of which I became a victim. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}

The documents in the case from NTNU itself show very clearly that, from February 2020 until May 2021 (when I received advance notice of dismissal), there exists no justification other than one dealing exclusively with expressions. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}

A further comparison with the Bassam Hussein case is useful here: Nothing alleged in the case against me occurred in connection with my work at NTNU. Nor was any police report ever filed, despite all the hysteria. Furthermore, the newspaper allegations that were made, all based on anonymous sources, were rejected by the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU), the press’s own supervisory body. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}

And it emerged in early 2021 that the allegations actually originated from colleagues at NTNU who had been conducting surveillance of me. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}

Those who have followed the matter at all know all this. Apparently not Tor Grande. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}

The core of the matter is that NTNU stubbornly maintained that it had to determine what had allegedly been said and claimed by me, an employee. It moved heaven and earth to pursue the matter through “fact-finding investigations”, unlawful data access, and costly external legal assistance, all initiated by NTNU. The expenses ultimately became enormous. :contentReference[oaicite:17]{index=17}

It was also alleged expressions that Anne Borg, Marit Reitan and the rest of the leadership believed should lead to my dismissal as a state employee. This is stated directly in the points considered by NTNU’s board (Civil Servants Act § 26(d)). One need only consult the case documents that are still available online. :contentReference[oaicite:18]{index=18}

It is, however, true that after the advance notice of dismissal was issued in May 2021, NTNU attempted to broaden the case. Yet another obvious lawyers’ trick by those with a weak case. But NTNU’s board also rejected this new element when considering the matter on 1 December 2021. It was entirely without substance. :contentReference[oaicite:19]{index=19}

To summarise: All of the case documents from NTNU unequivocally contradict Rector Tor Grande’s claims in Universitetsavisa in 2026 that the Eikrem case was not a freedom of expression case. :contentReference[oaicite:20]{index=20}

The conclusion is obvious: NTNU has engaged in clear differential treatment. This contradiction is highly embarrassing for Rector Tor Grande and for NTNU. And it should be. :contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind readers that Grande was part of NTNU’s leadership while the case against me was under way. His most recent inaccurate statements therefore cannot be due to a lack of familiarity with the case. :contentReference[oaicite:22]{index=22}