2025-06-05: The question of how Swedish universities should be organised has become so politically charged that it obscures the real issue – that the benefit to society could increase with greater independence for higher education institutions.
Chalmers, like the Stockholm School of Economics and Jönköping University, is a foundation-owned institution – making us exceptions in a sector where the other actors are formally public agencies directly owned by the state.
In last year’s Research and Innovation Bill, the government opened up the possibility of a public inquiry on the legal status of the state-run universities. However, a majority in the parliamentary education committee has halted this enquiry before it even began. (The Sweden Democrats and Social Democrats on the committee, coming from different perspectives, have reached the same conclusion: the state should remain the principal authority, and the agency form is the only acceptable one.)
This is a sign of how ideologically coloured the issue has become, not least in light of the situation in the United States. One might get the impression that this is entirely a battle over the political content of research – a conflict about being for or against “woke” or similar matters – but that misses an important point:
Every outstanding academic environment is by its very nature a sanctuary. A place where people meet in the pursuit of knowledge, and where cross-pollination leads to entirely new ideas and insights.
This is precisely what attracts top researchers – but of course, we do not create these environments for their enjoyment. They are formalised mechanisms to harness the immense power of human curiosity. Free thinking generates groundbreaking research results that can be transformed into innovation and societal benefit.
If research is steered too narrowly, the likelihood of unexpected discoveries diminishes, and thus so does the long-term benefit to society.
Swedish research policy is problematic in this regard. Much of the content of research is controlled through project-based funding from state agencies. This means that the assessment of research relevance in these cases lies outside the universities. This is a fundamental issue that makes it difficult for Swedish universities to compete internationally for talent. In many other places, scientific curiosity has more room to guide research.
There are several conceivable ways to change this – one would be to give universities greater control over their own financial resources. Chalmers is working long-term in this direction, made possible by the fact that, as a foundation, we control our own capital. Over time, the return on this capital could grow large enough for our academic environment to be driven more by researchers’ curiosity and the university’s own assessment of relevance than it is today.
We see it as our duty to try. We are one of the few Swedish actors who have the opportunity.
Of course, there are more benefits to operating a university in the form of a foundation – and not all need to be structured in the same way. But in the current debate on academic freedom, it is important to remember this: there is a connection between freedom, attractiveness, excellence, innovation, and, in the long term, maximum societal benefit.
I hope and believe that more people could share our practical view of the potential in alternative forms for higher education institutions – and I gladly invite members of the education committee, and others, to a conversation on the matter.
Martin Nilsson Jacobi, President and CEO of Chalmers University of Technology
Under the headline "President’s perspective" the President and CEO for Chalmers University of Technology, shares his reflections on current topics that concern education, research and utilisation.