Whistleblowing Complaint Filed by Two NHH Professors Two professors, Guttorm Schjelderup and Petter Bjerksund, lodged a formal “varsel” on 16 February 2026 against two colleagues at the Norwegian School of Economics, alleging breaches of research ethics and workplace conduct after a public debate on their 2021 wealth‑tax model [1][2]. They claim the colleagues conflated model assumptions with reality and circulated undocumented accusations that damaged reputations. The professors seek an institutional review of NHH’s ethical policy rather than censorship of scholarly debate.

Origin of the Dispute Traced to September 2025 DN Op‑Ed The controversy began with a Dagens Næringsliv op‑ed published in September 2025 that alleged a specific calculation error in the International Tax and Public Finance article, asserting the mistake altered key results for Norway’s tax system [1]. The op‑ed offered no supporting documentation, prompting the authors to defend their work. On 5 January 2026, DN finance editor Terje Erikstad confirmed that no such calculation error existed, effectively clearing the authors of the technical accusation [1].

Social‑Media Attack Prompted Ethics Review Request Following the op‑ed, LinkedIn posts labeled the research “completely meaningless” and an “unrealistic desk‑model,” breaching NHH’s values and workplace‑health regulations [1]. Schjelderup and Bjerksund argue that personal attacks violate the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee’s guidelines, which require factual disputes to be handled through journal comments. They request a principled determination of NHH’s rules on collegial conduct and clarification of the school’s ethical policy.

Broader Implications for Academic Culture Highlighted The February 18 2026 article frames the grievance as a symptom of a deeper crisis in academic culture, criticizing opaque peer‑review practices that may suppress open criticism and foster reciprocal pressure among scholars [2]. While the piece also notes unrelated events—such as Iranian student protests, a new NTNU anti‑fraud center, and a shooting at South Carolina State University—it emphasizes that filing a formal complaint over scholarly disagreement is a red flag for the norms of open debate in the “house of knowledge.”