Formal Varsling Filed by Two NHH Professors Two professors at the Norwegian School of Economics, Guttorm Schjelderup and Petter Bjerksund, lodged a formal “varsling” on 16 February 2026 accusing colleagues Karin Thorburn and Jøril Mæland of academic misconduct [1][2]. The complaint was submitted to NHH’s internal channels at the start of January 2026, triggering a confidential review process [2]. Both articles note that the grievance involves members of the Institute of Business Economics and the Institute of Finance within NHH [2].

Wealth‑Tax Debate Sparked Academic Conflict The dispute originated from a public debate on Norway’s wealth tax published in Dagens Næringsliv on 2 September 2025, where Thorburn and Mæland presented arguments that Schjelderup and Bjerksund deemed erroneous [1][2]. The column intensified scholarly disagreement, leading the latter pair to claim the former had crossed the line from academic discourse to norm violations [1][2]. Both sources emphasize that the debate was part of a broader election‑season discussion on tax policy [1].

Accusations Center on Modeling Errors and Norm Violations Complainants allege that Thorburn and Mæland confused theoretical models with empirical reality, mis‑applied calculations, and produced “absurd” results, thereby breaching what they describe as “normal scientific norms” [1][2]. The accusations focus on alleged methodological flaws rather than personal disputes [1]. Both articles report that the complainants view these breaches as serious enough to merit formal institutional action [2].

NHH Initiates Confidential Internal Review Highlighting Cultural Concerns NHH’s communication director, Geir Mikalsen, confirmed the institution received the complaint in January 2026 and that the case is being handled internally with documents kept confidential [2]. Khrono’s February 18 report expands the narrative, interpreting the escalation to a legal complaint as a symptom of a cultural shift away from open scholarly debate toward intimidation [1]. The articles together suggest that university leadership is urged to reinforce norms of status‑free discourse while navigating the confidential investigation [1][2].