101 The Populism Newspaper

The editorial of Fréttablaðið 25th February underscores ignorance on the issues of Laugarvatn and that the author has only familiarised themselves with one side of the issue. The University of Iceland is an independent institution but is not above criticism. Especially not from those who provided the University with 12.5 billion krónur in the last budget. Members of the South Constituency, as well as many other members of parliament, wish to offer education in Laugarvatn as has indeed been offered for the past 84 years. Criticism of the University’s decision is therefore not mere populism. This concerns a significant blow for a small community in the countryside, which is intertwined with the academic community and largely builds its operations around the University without any prior warning. Education in Laugarvatn is part of a remarkable educational history of the country. Laugarvatn has been developed as an educational village, a knowledge society. Unfortunately, many seem to have little respect for that. The decision to close off this remarkable history is a blow, not just for Laugarvatn but for the country as a whole.

Students, both current and former, want to maintain the education in Laugarvatn. The management wants to change the education to ensure increased interest as well as to adapt the education to the changed priorities of society. The University has not maintained the properties of the school in Laugarvatn in recent years. There was no conversation with the funding authority to accommodate Laugarvatn. The policy for Laugarvatn is based on the notion that the education should be in Reykjavik. All of this is subject to criticism but not populism. Especially in light of the strong support for university education in the university village of Laugarvatn.

The number of students has notably decreased since 2010, or since the education was extended from three years to five. However, the decline has not been greater in sports education than in other teaching education. Other teaching subjects have fared worse than sports teaching, despite being taught in the capital. The University has not conducted an analysis of this decline in the Faculty of Education. It is therefore clear that the decline has nothing to do with the location but rather with systemic changes in teacher education generally.

Façade creation

The goal has never been on the part of the University to maintain the education in Laugarvatn. Otherwise, changes and enhancement of the education in Laugarvatn would have been initiated, as was done with preschool teacher education when applications there were at their worst. There was significant interest from the locals and supporters of the education to carry out an extensive promotion of the programme. Naturally, there should have been a genuine conversation with the Parliament, Bláskógabyggð, and the South Iceland University Association, and not started that the day after the decision of the University Council was postponed, even though it was merely a façade creation.

It is entirely incorrect on the part of the editorial writer to claim that it is only possible to pursue sports teaching education in Laugarvatn. The author should check the website of the University of Reykjavík and rewrite the article. However, now it will not be possible to pursue sports teaching education in the countryside. The editorial writer also incorrectly represents the quality of education in Laugarvatn; there she should speak to the rector himself as the education is very good and there is a high level of satisfaction with it.

I assert that almost everyone in Parliament wants to promote education in the countryside alongside the development of education in the capital. However, it seems that this is not possible in cooperation with the University of Iceland. The University has broken the agreement that the University should be a University for all citizens of the country.

Journalists should be critical of decisions and informative, not critical of individual political parties and take a stance for or against decisions. I thought that was the goal, or is the goal 101 Populism?

Haraldur Einarsson The article was published in Fréttablaðið on 27th February 2016.