Now, the social work education is to be investigated to better prepare students for crime prevention work. SFS chairman Jacob Färnert reflects on the downsides of politics closely controlling higher education and the risk of bypassing scientific practice.
On Thursday, the government announced at a press conference that the appointment of a state public inquiry into the restructuring of social work education. The investigation has already been announced in the Tidö Agreement and is motivated by equipping future social workers with tools to deal with juvenile delinquency. It is easy to sympathize with the ambition, but the investigation nevertheless revives the issue of the balance between the autonomy of education and the interference of politics. At the Swedish National Union of Students, SFS, we raise a warning flag and believe that the investigation entails a restriction on the freedom of higher education. We demand that the investigation include a careful impact assessment of such detailed control.
Governments in Sweden of various stripes have historically taken liberties to restrict academic freedom in higher education. Recently, it was the Social Democratic-led government that introduced new degree objectives in teacher training, a program that by far has the most degree objectives of all higher education programs. The current government's intervention is therefore not new. Nevertheless, it is equally important for Sweden's students to protest against it together with the rest of the sector. For a democracy like Sweden, a free academy, free courts, free art and a free press should be a given. Neither current politics, interest groups nor troll factories should control what can be researched or taught at our universities. However, it has been shown in recent years that regardless of the political color of the government, it has not hesitated to restrict academic freedom and, above all, the autonomy of universities.
The detailed control of education has drawn criticism from the government's own supervisory and analytical authority, the University Chancellor's Office, which in a survey has pointed out that "Introduction of new objectives into the degree scheme should be done restrictively and always preceded by thorough preparatory work, including in the form of anchoring in the relevant research area and with the relevant education providers at Sweden's higher education institutions. This applies not least to education programmes that already have many objectives to take into account.".
Higher education comes into its own in a context of different perspectives, open discussion and academic freedom. This requires a scientific environment with a high degree of autonomy. That environment consists of university and college teachers who conduct research and pass on science to students. What do the representatives of academia and students say about the government's proposal? Professors of social work from all higher education institutions in Sweden that provide social work education have in a debate article called the proposal a populist move in which the parties behind the Tidö Agreement want to find a simple solution to complex problems. The head of the School of Social Sciences at Lund University has called the proposal very problematic and that the current training already includes crime prevention work which is a central and fundamental driver in all social work. It has also been raised criticism from doctoral students who claimed that the decision lacks factual basis and student unions who believe that the decision has the wrong focus.
Such an intervention risks stifling creativity, critical thinking and innovative solutions in education. The core of higher education lies in the hands of those who understand it best: university and college teachers, researchers and students. Social work is a complex field that requires adaptable and nuanced responses to the multifaceted challenges of youth crime. If teachers and researchers are not given the flexibility to address these challenges, solutions may become rigid.
While SFS agrees that the role of social services in preventing juvenile delinquency is important, we point out that the best approach is one that enhances education rather than dictates it. An education system should foster critical thinkers who can adapt to the ever-changing needs of society and can never be reduced to an activity that implements directives.
There are several alternative approaches. For example, the issue of strengthening freedom for higher education and research should be explored, rather than tightening the reins. We urge the government to improve the opportunities for university and college teachers to shape future social scientists – not as cogs in a crime-fighting machine, but as educated, independent-thinking and compassionate professionals.
If there is a need for increased knowledge within the relevant professional group, other approaches should be considered. For example, there could be better conditions for establishing courses at advanced level or supplementation in other forms of post-secondary education. Employers could also review their personnel policies and create better incentives for further training for professionals through commissioned training. Higher education institutions could also investigate whether there is an opportunity to offer more elements of workplace-based training. We can conclude that the currently appointed inquiry has the wrong focus and could have aimed at other issues that yield more benefits. The principle of academic freedom is not only a matter of principle, it is also a question of which measures yield the most dividends.