Female administrative staff in Norwegian Ed-Sci Live in Fear 2017 by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) © The author, Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), asserts his right to be identified as the author of this work. 40% of female Consultants are visually anonymous (14 of 35) in Ed-Sci's (UiO) staff-lists; 42% of the female Consult./Coord./Unspecif.Adm group are visually anonymous (16 of 38); and 37.5% of the same faculty of Ed-Sci's 'Study-Administration' are visually anonymous (3of 8), and it is entirely female; but ONLY 13% of female Consultants, 12% of female Consult./Coord./Unsp. elsewhere in the humanities (UiO) are withholding their photo on staff-lists (2016-data, cf. below) coinciding with the sample's key Ed-Sci exclusion-operator using a 2-3 decades old staff photo: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html the cancer-educated head of practical teacher training with NO ACADEMIC DEGREE in Ed-Sci Mai Lill Suhr Lunde in the 1990s or 1980s, Faculty of Ed-Sci official pseudo staff photo throughout 2015, 2016 and into 2017 a trace of rational fear in our Ed-Sci? Of course. First: Incriminating Notes from a doctored report form: Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) Gilje was the first institute (ILS)-emitted pseudo-inspector from UiO, sent to conduct an ad-hoc extra-examination aka a 'hearing over' in the class taught by one selected teacher-candidate only, myself, and had found nothing to use against me. But in such instances the university institute (here Institute for Teacher-Education and School-research Norw. Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS) just keep trying, and in the end they doctor the papers if they have to. In my case they 'had to' doctor them. Only by resisting, pressing them to the end of their aggressive means, can one get them enough out of balance to commit visible errors in that cooked paper-work. In my case the error consists in various written comments that judicially fall in the category of 'hate-remarks', little written acts of hate-crime that show up like blisters on the skin of the doctored report forms produced mainly by Maria Sofie Olsson and May Britt Esse Berge (both at Flaatestad practice-venue school just south of Oslo) in cooperation with the UiO Institute employees team consisting initially of Øystein Gilje, Lisbeth M. Brevik and Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, but aided by the rest of the institute (ILS, two of whom are visible only on my youtube videos from the UiO lecture hall). Martin Eek Olsen at the UiO Institute office (the Institute for Teacher-training and School-research) inserts the doctored report with the aggregated list of claims from these five socially dominant women and one man into the official filing cabinet of the Institute and prints his name at the bottom of a standard cover letter, then sends it off to the teacher-candidate. I quote some of the blisters of the doctored report, hate-remarks in writing that speak of a darkness made possible by the central government granting the local freedom to rule by subjective judgment, by totalitarianism 'if deemed necessary', all through Nordic teacher training, using the mentioned liaison for all it is worth: #1 " The candidate ("the student") shows will, but little ability to execute the work-tasks that are being laid upon him. Uses extremely [Norw.: 'hugely', a comparative stronger than 'very'] long time on simple chores (for example, to fill in homework on a work plan for the pupils takes him 3 days* 1 , while other students [teacher candidates] use a maximum of 10 minutes). " * 1 The time-span of "3 days" is here the week-end Friday to Monday, and the grounding of the claim is the teacher-candidate's sharing his past week-end-activities with Maria Sofie Olsson (the responsible secondary school teacher made into 'sifter'). On Monday the teacher-candidate, when asked, is telling her how he spent the week-end; he says he spent the week-end preparing for teaching-practice, i.e., more than 'filling in homework'. That is the level of his (my) interest in education as a science. Maria Sofie Olsson then uses this in her own odd way and collects other pieces of gossip to use the same way. #2 " He uses extremely [Norw.: hugely] long time to move himself from one place to another,* 2 and does not manage to orient himself in the school-building. Neither does he manage to bring with him things he needs for the teaching* 3 , and therefore has to interrupt the teaching to get them. When he has fetched various things it isn't always that he uses them. " * 2 The teacher-candidate walks with a cane and takes the elevator when Maria Sofie Olsson takes the stairs and the able-legged teacher-candidates follow behind, all of them rapidly out of sight before the lightly disabled teacher-candidate (myself) arrives by elevator. * 3 The only thing the teacher-candidate 'didn't bring' was the tape-recorder Maria Sofie Olsson offered without being asked, adding she "has it ready in the work-room", meaning she 'left it in her office' which she now calls 'work-room' for the first time instead of bringing it with her, as usual. This was the last in the series of ad-hoc extra-exams aka instances of 'hearing-on'. The teacher candidate takes the "work-room" for meaning the relevant section of the open classroom structure where the pupils indeed 'worked' on their learning-experiences. Maria Sofie Olsson then sits by the window, staring demonstratively out of it the entire 45 minute lesson, and keeps staring out of it while and after the candidate asks rhetorically without addressee: "Hm, where did the tape-recorder go?", around 15 minutes before the end of the lesson. That particular lesson might have been given a quite good critique for its level of improvisation, ending with a study of the meaning of a famous Bob Dylan text, followed by the youtube version of that song on the computer instead of doing a listening exercise using the tape-recorder Maria Sofie Olsson had elaborately kept away from the teacher candidate (myself) inside her shared office. #4 " The candidate has good pronunciation and an understandable English, but uses a language that is too advanced for the students he is supposed to teach. As he performs teaching in the subject English he only relates to a small part of the subject. ... The candidate [the student] therefore shows little academic insight into and knowledge of the subject English. " #5 " Often, when he was supposed to meet somewhere one had to wait for him because he was going to brush his teeth first. In addition he often gets up [stands up] without prior warning and disappears from conversations, and it turns out he had left to brush his teeth. " Signed 12.Nov.2015: A mob-culture ruled Ed-Sci on campus UiO: The visual anonymity resulting from the head of department ("Avdelingsleder") Mai Lill Suhr Lunde's 20-30 year-old photo is an odd inconsistency in light of the openness alleged through the UiO's openly available list of staff, evidently a false openness-claim in the case of employees serving in what we may call 'special duties', some of whom have for years been hiding in electronically locked safe-zones in the "Niels Henrik Abel's house" on the UiO Campus behind PINand ID-card operated security-gates within the building (map and photo below) on certain floors, as if they had atomic secrets to protect or had reasons to be afraid. Few would be likely to recognize Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde based on the official UiO-photo (see the cut-out pasted in below). I certainly did not, not even three feet away, when she posed as a "note-taker" in the interrogation meeting she "called" the teacher candidate "in" for, as she puts it in the email she sent on behalf of her superior Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien (leader of lecturing and instruction) and her superior Rita Hvistendahl (leader of the Institute), "calling in" the teacher candidate guilty of discovering Jean Piaget's TRUE quotes and sharing it in plenum in the dialogue segments of the lectures, which are indeed the correct medium to share it in. The 'Institute Leader' and the 'Leader of Teaching and Instruction' are, of course, the instruments by which Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde may keep her job or even, one day, be promoted. The two female superiors oversee the results Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde brings about, but it is Miss Mai Lill that does the actual "calling in" (Norw.: "innkalling"), as in "You are hereby called in for a meeting" (Norw.: "Du er herved inkalt til møte"), of the teacher candidate who discovers the forgery of the Piaget-quotes. No authority to 'call in' anyone who dissents or debates: Somebody else would be hired to do this task if Miss Mai Lill were to think twice and then refrain, but that is not a midigating circumstance. Spokespersons for the Norwegian Department of 'Knowledge' I know, conceited as hell that very label, but that is what they call it wrote to me and admitted that the UiO has no authority to "call in" anyone among the teacher-candidates for any matter pertaining to scientific facts and the voicing of such facts in the lecture hall. I had to push these spokespersons a bit before they admitted it, but admit it they did, in writing. Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde and company, hence, is committing an offence comparable of impersonating a higher authority, like a police officer each time she utters that sentence, explicitly or implicitly. I do not imagine she understands that particular legal-ethical fact. We need leaders in teacher-training who do. It is the very roles of these women that need to be transformed. They have made campus their domesticated yard and have neglected the larger principles that hold, or they never properly learned them in the first place. They are therefore incapable of serving as Mediators of the Parliament-authored principles for the teaching of the teacher-candidates that will teach our children. These particular women specifically and explicitly, as empirically verified by myself in debates with them, collectively carry in their coordinated minds the logically inconsistent notion that Norway's so-called 'Law for Teaching' (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61#KAPITTEL_1) has little or no direct validity in teacher training, a notion that in itself amounts to incapacitation as leader or lecturer in teacher training. But these are the minds that dominate every corner of Norwegian (possibly all of Nordic) teacher training. Brutes among men have joined them, and together they make up the anti-scientifically minded mob-regime so distinctly visible in the three videos converted to photo-strips and included in "Scared Stiff ..., a Documentary". http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html (with a 20-30 year-old photo throughout 2015, 2016 and, so far, in 2017:) As a Miss Guardian of the vault of fake quotes and -paraphrases, this particular 'homemaker' within science – a domesticator of 'her' section of the wild world of science – knows exactly what she and her co-domesticators of an Ed-Sci in handcuffs want. She has Educational Science in general and teacher training in particular precisely in the place and state that she keeps them within 'her' zone of social influence, on behalf of her superiors, with whom she conspires to get rid of threats to the paradigm. The paradigm itself isn't the 'conspiracy'. As the late Gore Vidal so famously put it, they just "think alike", all of these servants of the paradigm that, in the case of 'modern Learning-Sciences', leans on the fake Piaget-quotes and paraphrases; and the ones charged with the 'duty' to protect that paradigm in Norway do so with the means I have accounted for (cf. Soerfjord 2015-2016). The co-thinking, rather, lies in the various coordinated acts of office-holders' evasive measures when addressed in writing, and in the demonstrative acts of discriminating any teacher candidate that points out the errors in the lecture-mediated pseudo-quotes and -paraphrases of Jean Piaget (by all lecturers), or points out the mal-translation of Vygotsky (by authors in the curricula of Ed-Sci). That very administratively coordinated assault on individual teacher candidates is what, objectively speaking, in fact by definition constitutes so-called 'conspiracy', which means 'planning together' and is an abbreviated reference to the conspiring to commit acts that are unlawful or, if used metaphorically, acts that are inappropriate. We see the outward resemblance, or symptoms, of a concrete (non-metaphoric) act of 'planning together to commit an act of unlawfully removing someone' in the photo-strip of Scared Stiff..., a Documentary. The act of removing this particular student from the lecture hall is, in addition to being unlawful in itself, an act motivated by the urge to prevent the candidate from talking about the unlawful method I call "peer-exclusion-threat pedagogy" throughout Norwegian Learning-Sciences courses, in all of Norwegian teacher-training; used systematically and consistently in all of Norway's institutions of higher education and, I suspect, in the other Nordic nations too: Denmark, Finland and Iceland. All indications point to the methods in Denmark, at least, being identical to those in Norway. Not all instances of aggressive behavior like what we see on the face of Dr. Oeystein Gilje in the 'live photo-strips' are signs of conspiracy, but the aggressive behavior we see in this particular case is a coordinated set of behaviors, hence the result of, togetherplanning'. Dictionaries call that 'conspiracy' who wants to argue with them? What is the point in making up a different name for it? The coordination behind the curtain, manifested in the pasted-in sample and the threatening emails sent by these people, is by definition a series of acts of 'conspiring to silence the candidate' in the whole-class dialogue, then remove that candidate from the lecture and the course if he does not remain silent in these allegedly 'open-for-questions-and-comments segments', which are still quite essential segments in modern lectures, even though Meta-Pedagogy (teachers of pedagogy) are trying their hardest to modify this type of segment into something else, something more controllable. But the administrative means that protect the fake quotes that protect the paradigm are, as I have demonstrated hermeneutically, unlawful acts ignored collectively by the field called Law, even by the field called Philosophy, which for a long time contained Ed-Sci. And the faked quotes are objectively proven to be just that: forgeries (Soerfjord 2015). What ought we then say about that paradigm? It certainly takes on a somewhat morbidly laughable hue, does it not? It is in no sense a trivial one, the social-psychological and legalethical matter we are looking at. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/om/organisasjon/adm/ We see 'practical-pedagogical-education' head of department Mai Lill Suhr Lunde hiding her visual appearance behind a 20-30-year-old photo of herself that is no longer her true self. This is the face she has presented as her own current face throughout 2015 and 2016, until the time of publishing this essay. I think we may assume she has been hiding behind this 2 to 3 decades old photo for as long as she may have rationally seen an above normally high security risk on account of the 'special tasks' she sells her services to on campus, services that violate human rights and violate the principles stipulated by the Parliament in the national 'Law for teaching' which is valid in all teacher-training because it stipulates the principles whereby all teaching of children is to be performed – the primarily violated one being the principle that all children within Norway, according to §1-1, are to be taught "a scientific way of thinking", and they are to learn "to think critically" as well. Mai Lill Suhr Lunde violates these principles because she sends threatening letters to scientifically dissenting teacher-candidates, letters whereby these candidates are being "called in for talks" or in a threatening syntax, first "invited for talks" and then, in a follow-up-letter "called-in for talk" when the scientifically dissenting teacher-candidates voice the evidence their dissent is founded on, as in the discovery of the mismatch between IMPUTED Piaget-quotes and the REAL Piaget-quotes, or the Norwegian mistranslation of the Vygotskyan "zone of proximal development" (by UiO's Ivar Bråten) in the courseliterature that all teacher-candidates must internalize, reproduce and refer to in absurd manners none of them really understand. After I informed about these errors in plenum, hundreds of candidates now have an insight into these details that UiO attempted to prevent them from getting from me, in real time and in the same lecture hall that disseminated the blatantly fake quotes; an insight I offered minutes after they had been disseminated each time the proven error was being 'taught'. Mai Lill Suhr Lunde is an instrument against the PRACTICING of that "scientifc perspective" among teacher-candidates in the lecture halls and seminar rooms, where it MUST be practiced in order to ENABLE teacher-candidates TO TEACH IT. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html I assure the reader, she looks nothing like this now, and hasn't for at least a decade or two, or even since the 80s when she educated herself in biology, long before she was hired into the business of controlling the scientific field of teacher-education, 'her' corner of Ed-Sci, to make sure it does not get too 'scientifically minded' whatever that means. We see in the video-based photo-strips in Scared Stiff ..., a documentary what it means. Why would she see the need to hide her true current face? Could it possibly have something to do with the way she impersonates (falsely pretends to be) somebody with the governmental authority to "call in" scientifically dissenting teacher-candidates if they bring up the real Piaget-quotes in plenum, call them in for so-called '"talks" etc?; or any of the other special tasks she performs for Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, her supervisor, who engages a Dr. Polit. (Eyvind Elstad) to pretend as if he is qualified to reject (in writing) the evidence of that quote forgery in the field of Cognitive Science, which I had handed to them in writing ? Could she possibly be aware of some danger that she puts herself in by her manner of persecuting scientific dissenters? Naturally, she is aware of it. Her hiding is rational. Perhaps someone in Philosophy could explain to our government - "the Department of Knowledge" the need to 'call in' her and her people for some 'chats' about administrational ethics, for starters; then force-feed them a seminar or two on the logically necessitated application of the so-called 'Law for Teaching' in teacher-education then install a Division Minister (I invented the title) to supervise them, keep them in control. It is obviously a rational fear that causes 14 of the total number of 37 female staff with the job-title "(1st/Sen) Consultant" ("...konsulent") in the administration of UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci (UV) to NOT POST their staff photo on the list of staff. All but one of the faculty's 13 male staff with one of the 'Consultant'-titles do post their photo. So, 38 % of the female faculty staff Consultants (incl. First-/Senior-Consultants) choose to remain visually anonymous, while only 8 % (1 of 13) of the faculty's male Consultants do. In other faculties the numbers are radically different. 14.9% of female Consultants in the Faculty of Humanities (10 of 67) remain visually anonymous, while 33% of their male Consultants (5 of 15) for some reason (hardly for fear) remain visually anonymous. 38% vs. 14.9%, for the females, and 8% vs. 33% for the males would SEEM to somehow potentially cancel one another out somehow; but the shallow and trivial mode of mind can only last until we think about the FUNCTIONS men can fill that most women cannot. We see such a FUNCTION in the video-based 'live' PHOTO-STRIPS (available in Scared Stiff..., a documentary). Data for the University of Oslo, UiO, 14.Aug.2016 http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/ UV Faculty of Ed-Sci (the Learning-Sciences and teacher-education) 40% of female Consultants (incl.1st.Consult./Senior Consult.) are visually anonymous: 14 of a total of 35 females (1 of 12 anonymous male Consultants). 42% of females in the group 'Consultants-Dept.Head/Coordinators-Unspecif. Adm.' are visually anonymous (16 of 38 females) The 1 female Unspecified Administrators is visually anonymous, just like the 1 unspecified male in the Faculty of Humanities is visually anonymous. The Faculty's 'Study-administration' are all females, 8 in all. 37.5% of which are visually anonymous: 3 of 8 HF Faculty of Humanities http://www.hf.uio.no/personer/adm/ 14.9 % of female Consultants (incl.1st.Consult./Senior Consult.) are visually anonymous: 10 of a total of 67 females) meaning 85.1% of the female Consultants in the Faculty of Humanities proudly show their staff photo online. They have no reason to hide their visual identity, and see no reason to hide it. 20.8 % of females in the group 'Consultants-Coordinators-Unspecif.Adm.' are visually anonymous [15 of 72 (67+3+2)]; and + 3+1+6 for Coord./Section-Chief/Admin.Leader gives us 15 out of 82: only 18% . Study-Section: 16.6% of female Consultants are visually anonymous. 20% of male Consult. Female Department Head (Johanne Cecilie Høyem Jørgensen): visually anonymous No Coordinator Institutes in the Faculty of Humanities: Archeology, conservation and history Philosophy, ideaand art-history, and classical languages Cultural studies and oriental languages Linguistic and Nordic studies Literature, region-studies and European languages Media and communication Musical sciences Other humanistic sciences, or, sciences I view as distinctly 'humanistic', are Sociology, Political Science, Social Anthropology and Psychology, all (along with Economics) organized by UiO as a Faculty of Social Sciences - "sosialvitenskapelig fakultet" http://www.sv.uio.no/ all which display the same relaxed outlook as the faculty of humanistic sciences, leaving the Faculty of Ed-Sci as either the paranoid one or the one steeped in a deep rational fear. And I say: of course it is a rational fear. You see their sins in the documentary Scared Stiff (Sørfjord 2016); that is, you see a tiny corner of them, on gaudy display, sins they are aware of; but hey, it's their job to do them, and somebody has to, right? Wrong. A few staff-list excerpts and the UiO raw data: http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/ Sample: http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/studieadministrasjonen/ Raw Data UiO Fac. Ed-Sci Male Female with photo w/o photo with photo w/o photo "Senior-Consultant": 7 16 6 (of which is designated as:) "Senior Research-Consultant": "First-Consultant": 3 1 4 7 "Consultant" (Konsulent): 2 1 1 (of which are designated as:) "Study-Consultant": "Program-Consultant": "Economic Consultant": "Study-Team-Coordinator and - Study-Consultant": "Coordinator"/ "Section-Chief"/ "Head of Dept." 4 1 1 (deceptive, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde) (Seksjonssjef/Avdelingsleder): "Administrative Leader": "Leutenant" (Fullmekig): "Study-Leader" (Studieleder): "Communication-Chief" (Kommunikasjonssjef): Unspecified job description/-title: 1 Senior Adviser: 3 3 Adviser: 3 5 2 Project Leader: 3 http://www.hf.uio.no/personer/adm/ Fac. Hum. Male Female with photo w/o photo with photo w/o photo "Senior-Consultant": 7 2 26 4 (of which is designated as:) "Senior Research-Consultant": (1) "First-Consultant": 8 3 23 4 "Consultant" (Konsulent): 18 2 (of which are designated as:) "Study-Consultant": (9) "Program-Consultant": (1) "Economic Consultant": ( 1) "Study-team-Coordinator and - Study-Consultant": (1) "Coordinator" (general/specified)/ 3 "Section Chief" (Avdelingsleder)/ 2 1 "Administrative Leader": 1 6 "Leutenant" (Fullmekig): 1 "Study-Leader" (Studieleder): 3 3 "Communication-Chief" (Kommunikasjonssjef): 1 Unspecified job description/-title: 1 2 Conclusively Comparative Data Faculty of Educational Science (Ed-Sci) 40% of the female Consultants are visually anonymous (14 of 35) 42% of the female {Consult./Coord.(+Section-Chief/Admin.Leader)/'Unspecif. Adm'} group are visually anonymous (16 of 38) 37.5% of the entirely female 'Study-Administration' are visually anonymous (3of 8) Faculty of Humanities: Female Consult./Coord.(+...)/Unspecif.: 26+23+18+3+1+6 = 77 with photo, 10 w/o photo (Consult. include Senior-Consult. and 1st-Consult.) , which is 10 of total 87 w/o photo on staff list: 12% of females without photo on the staff list of the humanities / Consultants only: (13%, 10 of 77). 40 and 42 % in Ed-Sci compared to the healthy 12 and 13% in neighboring fields in itself tells a distinct story. When we know what the truth that manifests itself in these numbers is by believing what we see in Scared Stiff..., a documentary and elsewhere we know better than ignore it. Or, some of us do. We do not 'deduct' the details of that truth from the statistics of fear, naturally, we merely recognize the numbers as a likely trace of the rational fear anyone involved in such forgeries and violations of law and human rights naturally would tend to feel. They appear to be 'scared stiff', as it were, many of these females, of the risk of being recognized on the street. Is it right that they should have such work-tasks, then, that cause them to have, as they indeed do, rational reasons for harboring fear? And what is it with these work-tasks that is so peculiar. Are they perhaps essentially unlawful, contrary to Parliament-emitted policy, against human rights, or against all good principles ? What is it about the methods of Mai Lill Suhr Lunde in particular she is the codesigner and executor of all of it at the UiO-institute called ILS that makes her aware that she is put at risk personally? Rather than simply trying to answer the scientific points I raised and admitting the error in the face of the evidence I have quoted to the Institute (ILS), she did chose the opposite. It's an entire industry of 'self-modification-preachers' refusing to 'modify' their previous 'Piaget-schema', while they keep plotting to force teacher-candidates to "modify" as a rule, allegedly as evidence of "accommodation according to Piaget". The preachers of 'self-reflection' sure do have very little of it themselves, when it comes down to it. That is an observed fact, an empirical (experienced) fact, pointed out in international academic literature. Norway, however, has avoided the attention it deserves for being a major sinner in the class. Being, as they are, preachers of 'self-modification', it turns out to be a justly put sarcasm if we were to point out the irony of their own stubbornness in a country like Norway, where the Piaget-1967-quotes are being forged day out and day in by a large group who, without ever checking the facts for themselves, by oral prostitution on pulpit-like platforms through microphones that send the sound ricocheting off hardwood-paneled or prime clay-brick-covered auditorium walls paid by hard-working tax-payers with their tongues and hands sign their names to that conspiracy for the benefit of keeping their jobs. That is simply how they perform their power-point-stiffened, Dr. Polit.-lubricated oral "Ed-Sci" which it therefore isn't. We can produce an organizationand process-structure that is 'Ed-Sci', but we sure have to raise a lot of hell to get there. They might promise to change if their own emissions are pushed up their noses, but they will not come up with the goods. Like many or most deviantly addicted, they will not change and will not be changed, not by anyone. They are not a 'thinking entity'. They are a 'social entity' where thinking isn't allowed. They can only be removed. New institutions need to be set up, leaving the addicted deviant in the old ones and hiring newly educated from abroad in the new, since there is no Norwegian institution capable of educating anyone in 'Ed-Sci'. I even doubt there is a Scandinavian such in existence yet. They are 'on the job training institutions' in old habits that defy Parliament-emitted principles. And Parliament has so far been too dumb to understand it, too dumb to understand that the law they passed for all teaching of children (especially §1-1 of it) dictates form and content of all teacher-education, the methods of which they therefore must control, legislate and interfere with or have the field run scientifically and legally rogue as it presently is, and has for ages, just like this particular person here, who is now 20 years older or more, than what you might think, which evidently is what this fraud wants you to think, so that you will not recognize her on the street or on campus: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html Sources: http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/ and http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/studieadministrasjonen/ Faculty of Ed-Sci: The Personnel Administrators http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/personalseksjonen/ 60% (3 of 5) visually anonymous all-female Consultants/1 st Cons./Senior Consult.-staff in 'Personnel'. ILS (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning) Institute for Teacher-education and School-research "Niels Henrik Abel's building" on Campus Blindern https://www.uio.no/om/finn-fram/omrader/blindern/bl14/ Niels Henrik Abel's building is the taller building to the right, called the 'Mathematics'building on account of the larger portion of it being inhabited by the Institute of Mathematics. The administrators of the Institute for Teacher-education and Schoolresearch ("Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning", ILS) are on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/om/organisasjon/ledelsen/ The Faculty offices of Ed-Sci ("undervisningsvitenskapelig fakultet", "uv-fak") are in the Eilert Sundt's building (Eilert Sundts hus) in the far right corner of campus on the first photo and on the map, which is the north-eastern corner. Campus Blindern is about 2 km straight north of down-town Oslo. The Ed-Sci Faculty Leadership (alleged leadership): http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/ledelsen/ http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/ledelsen/baardkjo/index.html http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/forskningsadministrasjonen/sbl/index.html http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/ritah/index.html http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstien/ Her office on the 3 rd floor of Niels Henrik Abel's building (room 329) is within the mentioned electronically locked-down PINand ID-card-operated security vault within the building. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/om/organisasjon/adm/?page=2&u-page=2 By Jan.05.2017 Martin Eek Olsen has uploaded the photo he kept withdrawn while he was involved in the latest exclusion process, as report-writer on reports that's right, summarising the reports into a metareport-on-gossip in which he offers his conclusion on reports gathered by Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, 'ExclusionServices Coordinator' for the Practical-Pedagogical Education (PPU) Courses. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/oystegi/index.html Dr. Oeystein (written Øystein) Gilje is the main participant in the 'live photo-strips' re-formated from video and included in the pdf-format documentary titled "Scared Stiff..." (Sørfjord 2016), uploaded on Dec.28.2016; an appointed teacher of pedagogy - who instantly turns into this: {cf. "Scared Stiff Church-authored pedagogic faith and faithful brutes for hire, a Documentary" (28.Dec.2016). View the HD-quality 'live photo-strip' p.215-283, 1 frame per pdf page, 'live' by Adobe scroll-button and with the frame set to screen-size. Then enlargen the page and read the expressed emotions yourself. The above photo is from a segment beginning 1:55 into the second of three videos the first video being audio only, the second with its initial segment out of focus. View the photo-strip format of the segment in High Definition in the documentary.} the aggressive version of himself, at the onset of a scientific perspective on the alleged Piaget-quotes and paraphrases; the same aggression he displayed [1:]when I informed him, one-on-one, in Aug. 2015, of the abusive behavior in the so-called 'cooperation' in the obligatory 'group-work' for which no rules are laid down other than 'solve your disputes', groups that are therefore left in the hands of the socially dominant, who consequently do as they wish, threatening and silencing those who have better or just different ideas than they have; the same aggression he displayed [2:]in the seminar chamber, in Sept. 2015, before the entire class when I, in my scheduled presentation before the class, showed how Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" has been mistranslated by Norwegian textbooks (they have it as the Norwegian version of "proximal zone of development" - "den naermeste utviklingssonen", instead of the obvious choice, simply "sonen for umiddelbar utvikling", which is the proper and theoretically meaningful translation. The unbelievable mistranslation produced by the Norwegian sect spreads into all their texts on education, adding to the list of verifiable nonsense, all of which the sect prohibits anyone from discussing within the same lecture-hall-plenum that it is being disseminated by lecturers. The sect dominates Norwegian teacher education; holds nonmandated by law interrogation meetings aka 'chat-meetings' they "call in" scientifically dissenting teacher-candidates for; uses bullies like the one in the above photos as its voiceand method-police (see the video-based photo-strip in "Scared Stiff..., a Documentary"). This particular Ed-Sci-academic, incidentally, Dr. Oeystein Gilje at the UiO Institute for Teacher-education and School-research, "informed" the practice-venue-school, personally or through Dept. Head Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, that the scientifically dissenting candidate (myself) "can be domineering". This is then relayed by the leader of teaching-exercises herself, May Britt Esse Berge at the practice venue, to myself in an accusatory tone as she interrupts my act of informing her, in Sept.2015 after a week's teaching-exercise, of, precisely, domineering behavior well into the range of abusive behavior by one female in the obligatory "group-work" the same week. Miss May Britt Esse Berge abruptly counters it in a sharp tone by saying "Does this happened to you often?" indicating it is the one who talks about abuse or is the target of it who's the problem, following up with: "ILS informed me that you can be domineering" ("ILS informerte meg om at du kan vaere dominerende") and the female has no clue as to the amateurishly abusive nature of her own behavior, literally beyond belief. It needs to be experienced, which is what 'embedded empiricism' allows actually being a 'student' and embedding the researcher-function in it, but eliminating the vulnerability and fear that makes it impossible to speak up, because speaking up about consensus-threatening facts and passing such a course is impossible unless one pretends to yield to consensus. The researcher, naturally, would need to know about these consensusthreatening facts and understand them in order to detect the way these sect-members react to them. The verification of pleasant behavior towards teacher-candidates who agree and present no consensus-threatening facts, naturally, has no scientific value. It is the response to well-founded disagreement about consensus-sensitive matters that needs to be learned, legislated, enabled, controlled, controlled again and made into a condition even for the economic funding of the institutions themselves, and deviations punished economically and career-wise. It is the trade of rights-removing services between Norwegian institutes of teacher-training and the venues for practical teaching-exercise liaisoned with these courses, we are seeing in this type of discourse; a trading of 'acts of removing rights that universally apply to each individual'. The vocal and facial aggression on behalf of the UiO institute, by Dr. Oeystein Gilje, had been noted throughout the semester by everyone present, hundreds of students of pedagogy; all of whom learned the low value imputed to the target (myself), institutional aggression openly displayed before the class, in seminar rooms and lecture halls; accompanied by administrational bullying in the form of Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde "calling in" for "chats" to subdue the one who reported the Piaget quote errors and in-group abuses; until the openly displayed [3:] discrimination we see in the video-based photo-strip recorded in the UiO lecture hall on Campus Blindern 11.Nov.2015 (in Scared Stiff..., a documentary), involving the facial and bodily aggression displayed by Dr. Oeystein Gilje in the above photos extracted from the video. The two teachers who actively professed the fake Piaget-1967-quotes in the autumn semester of 2015, on behalf of UiO's "Institute for Teachereducation and School-research" (ILS), were these two: Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse, the first of which started to jog out of the auditorium (chirping "I'm off to Paris now") after the lecture as I walked up front and started to talk to her about the real Piaget-quotes I had commented on in the fullclass-dialogue she invited to after she had posted a fake quote on the projector but strolling casually along campus when I got out behind her, limping and leaning on my walking-cane; the second female twisting in such discomfort in the full-class-dialogue she invited the audience to and in which I waited until no one else had a hand up, that a bully in my class began to shout that I ought to "shut up and let her get on with it", an intimidation she welcomed, after which she proceeded to find out that the film-projecting device didn't work so that her entire 45-minute lecture was cut down to the already shut off reluctant debate with myself, and all were told that class is over. These are the sort of "interruptions" Mai Lill Suhr Lunde refers to in her threatening emails to myself in October 2016, up until an hour before the lecture we see in the photo-strips of the "Scared Stiff"-documentary; accusations that she then brings to a UiO panel to ask them to ban me from campus. Laughable ? Yes, it is; and yes, they are, these non-cognitivescience-minded Dr.Polit.-trained, scientifically infant-like, brute-assisted ignorant mobbers who squat in the Ed-Sci offices we pay for: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstik/index.html http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/brittfo/index.html Here is one such Dr. Polit. pretending to be Dr. of Pedagogy a man who, as I would almost expect, prefers to not have his face shown on the staff-list in Ed-Sci, where he even pretends to be an authority on cognitive science, and using that fraudulently held authority to expel the evidence of the real Piaget 1967-quotes and their implications for teacher-education, a fraud in broad daylight: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/eyvindel/index.html This is him in http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/personerforfattere/eyvind-elstad/ : a 10 or 15 year-old photo I quote in "Scared Stiff ..., a documentary" as well, where I document the forgery he committed when he pretended he was qualified in Cognitive Science. It was a rather laughable attempt, inasmuch as it was as spokesperson on behalf of the 'institute', appointed by Leader of Instruction Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, he officially rejected the evidence of quote-fraud I handed the institute in August 2016, while enrolled in a 'Practical-Pedagogical' education program as a regular full time student the element of research always present, only not on behalf of a public office, but rather embedded in the student function, never absent, because a 'student' is also a 'researcher'. Learning a curriculum and a set of tasks is at the same time the only way to learn about certain problems, learn what is really going on, since they evict anyone from these courses who dare question methods or alleged quotes by unlawful means when they 'have to' which is why they are an ideological 'sect', not 'Ed-Sci'. They need to be replaced, somehow, and new structures installed organizationwise , hiringwise and with regard to all other processes before it can become 'Ed-Sci'. Currently it is in the hands of manipulating non-Ed-Sci-minded and even non-Ed-Sci-educated, people like the Dr. Goebbels here, Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad, who, like the female authors of a certain textbook Dr. Polit. Kitt (Margaret) Lyngsnes and Dr. Polit. Marit Rismark at the NTNU - "Norwegian University of (poly-) Technical and Natural Sciences" in the Trøndelag region invaded the field of EdSci, pretending to be masters of that field when amateurish impostors is a more accurate description of what they really are. I'd say it is fraud in broad daylight. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/lisbbr/index.html What 'must be taught children' must also be taught teacher candidates the Blindern tapes: The photo-series ('live photo-strips', in Scared Stiff ..., a documentary) was recorded as video on 11.Nov. 2015, and shows Dr. Oeystein Gilje (cf cut-out pasted in above) bullying the same teacher candidate in the lecture hall, following the candidate's attempt in the full class dialogues that the lecturer herself invites to to once again, in a scientific manner, 1:raise the issue of the scientific perspective dictated by the curriculum literature and by the 'Law for Teaching' (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61#KAPITTEL_1), which dictates we methodically teach children "a scientific manner of thinking", "the ability to critical thinking", a mandate that by logical and judicial necessity implies the direct order to teach teacher-candidates the exact same thing, and then 2:follow up with the inconsistency manifested by the factually (objectively so) and evidently falsified Piaget-quotes and –paraphrases used systematically in these lectures – a small set of variations of the same incorrect claim: the claim that 'Piaget's Accommodation is modification', which the lecturers imprint in the minds of teacher candidates in the first stage and in every subsequent refresher-stage of the training into 'the ruling consensus' on methods of teaching. This is then a theoretical corner-stone in the didactic structure of the teaching of pedagogy in Norway (evidently in Denmark too, and most likely in Sweden and Finland as well), a didactic structure that focuses on the 'fault-recognition' type pseudo-Socratic dialogue which is actually the precise opposite of Piaget's Constructionism, which is where the concept of a balanced dual functionality called 'Assimilation and Accommodation' has its place in the context of cognitive Adaptation (cf. Soerfjord 2015: Quoteand Citation fraud at the University of Oslo (UiO) and The KantPiaget connection nobody wants to talk about). The REAL QUOTES, in other words, give us the OPPOSITE DIDACTIC principle. THAT is something for these liars to fear. And they really do fear the REAL quotes in this matter. They fear them so much that they are willing to behave as the assholes of the century we indeed see in the photo-strips pardon my French. These are the bullying types we were bothered by as children in the school playground and even in class, the asserters of their own 'home-grown opinion' and the buyers of alliances. The bullies of the mobs in school are the same character types as the bullies of the mob that now 'administrate' teacher education. They are the OPPOSITE of the ones with a scientific perspective, a "critical-" and "scientific way of thinking", as §1 in the Law for Teaching" puts it. In the weeks and months (Aug-Oct 2015) preceding Nov.11, the candidate has brought up the issue in the lecture hall whenever a false Piaget quote or -paraphrase has been referred to or built on by utterance or method, and whenever displayed power-point-wise in the lecture hall, as verified on two occasions in the first two weeks of the first semester of the course program (Soerfjord, Sep-Oct 2015). After writing to the institute (the "ILS" of the Univ. of Oslo, UiO), getting no reply, writing them again and addressing the University Rector about the matter as well, a written response-letter that merely rejects the relevance of the whole matter was sent to the candidate, and the candidate was instead informed he is about to be 'called in' and 'invited' to the interrogation meeting accounted for in Soerfjord 2015, the threatening event of 'being called in' by the above mentioned Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde and the rest of the Domestic Idea-Police to the institute for interrogation aka 'talks', letters and emails stating 1: the candidate is or is about to be "called in for a talk" and repeated with the words 2:"invitated for a talk" (a dualversion wording that secures a way for them to talk themselves out of trouble if charged of administrational deceit on account of implicitly lying about some mandate to "call in" a teacher candidate who debates learning theory and proves the paradigm to be at fault). The Norwegian Ministry of Education answered my query to them about these intimidations, and stated explicitly that no such authority to 'call in' or 'invite to implicitly mandatory meetings' to discuss scientific matters brought up by a student exists, and no one in any university is given such authority by the law. Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde only PRETENDED to have that authority. She pretended that she or the Institute for Teacher-training and School-research has that authority. And she and the institute STILL DO. No one in government will physically or institutionally stop them in this unlawful habitual intimidation-tactic and under-mining of the scientific perspective their own curricula go on about at great length. I have the books, compendia and article print-outs with the texts they have selected themselves, and I have read them. They bear directly on their own lectures and the didactic malpractice we see in the video's photo-strip (cf. Scared Stiff..., a documentary). The same morning (that of 11.Nov.2015) the 'department head' Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde has sent emails to the candidate that threaten with sanctions if the candidate keeps bringing up the matter in the lecture hall. The candidate (myself) replied that every occasion of his involvement in the full class debate segment of these lectures have been limited to comments spoken when being pointed at by the lecturer while raising the hand in response to the lecturer inviting the whole class to a dialogue at various stages throughout the lectures. That email to 'department-head' Mai Lill Suhr Lunde was answered by the candidate by pointing out the facts of the candidate's oral involvement in the dialogue segments of the lectures we see the 80s or 90s version of Miss Mai Lill in the currently posted staff photo, the photo she kept on the public staff list throughout 2015 and now, in July 2016, still uses, as if her 'chores' makes it safer to remain visually disguised. The female lecturer then takes the bait, so to speak though my reply email to Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde an hour before the lecture was actually initially strictly a truthful response to an illegitimate threat the threat of sanctions if I "interrupt", which I never did and, throughout the 90-minute-long lecture, she, the female lecturer (cf. photo in Scared Stiff), explicitly discriminates the candidate in the lecture hall (this is the lecturer doing the dirty work for Mai Lill Suhr Lunde), by inviting the full class to ask questions but demonstratively (explicitly and repeatedly) refusing this particular candidate to ask any. See the photographic strip segments and 'live-strips', reformated from videos, in the documentary Scared Stiff..., each photo with its time-indicator from the original video (minus a half second 2:14 into the second video that I edited away to comply with youtube's policy of not revealing any full names in the videos), and with the photos in each sub-segment fairly evenly spaced* 4 so as to not distort the represented time within each of the sub-segments. Take a look at the youtube videos too, if you like, all in Norwegian, though, and with much unstable camera-movement in some parts, loss of HD-quality throughout; their main value being as empirical data to authenticate the HD-quality photo-strips in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary": 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYqoY8QpRM0&feature=youtu.be audio only, camera hidden, verifies discrimination; 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUhNfT0nds0&feature=youtu.be audio and video: visual details of the intimidation; 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNp5LhHOzt0&feature=youtu.be audio and video: more visual details that visually confirm the lecturer-operated discrimination only heard in video 1. *4 One exception is where I mainly allow the representation of trajectories rather than speed. Another exception is where photos are blurred and I had to use primarily the ones that are sharp enough. A third exception is where facial expressions are relevant and the inclusion of them means adding more photos than the speed of motion dictates. In the 'live' photo-strips (cf Scared Stiff), notice the face of Dr. Oystein Gilje as he tries to bodily, kinetically and psychologically intimidate the messenger of fraudulent quotes and non-compliance with §1 in the Norwegian 'Law for Teaching' (by the teacher-training program staff of the University of Oslo, UiO) into leaving the lecture hall (cf. Quote and citation fraud at the UiO, Chapter 2, with 'the learning of value and the connection to bullying in our schools' etc.; Soerfjord 2015). Bully the different-minded then exclude the bully-victim institutionally on account of being bullied: Miss X, a paper-mover at the Faculty of Ed-Sci in this case also a mover of doctored reports – evades the whole matter of the quoteand citation forgery I have demonstrated by settling the meta-matter of 'debate or not debate about' it by emailing back the mere: "But that is a matter of interpretation." She collects her salary no matter what, so why would she care? Besides, if she did care and spoke up, she would lose her job; or, to be precise, her superiors would signal their disapproval in front of her colleagues and peers, which would be a signal for them to shun Miss X and display contempt against her, which would make it impossible for Miss X to do her job. THEN she would loose it BECAUSE of not being 'able to function in her job environment'. This is the way they operate. First they bully and then they file the reports that lead to dismissal on account of being bullied in the environment aka "not function in the environment" (cf. Quote and citation fraud at the UiO, Chapter 2, with 'the learning of value and the connection to bullying in our schools' etc., Soerfjord 2015, on how the Institute did exactly that in the lecture hall, against the teacher candidate who discovered the false nature of the quotes and paraphrases that are being used systematically and consistently in all lectures that mention basic learning-theory. Read how they do what they do among all the teacher candidates, who will soon be the ones to do it among the children who fill our primary and secondary schools. It is the recipe for how to arrive in the socially problematic state of our primary and secondary schools today. We read it in the news every now and then, the bully who sets the trend in the local environment and has everyone following his or her lead usually within a small dominating alliance initially, then the whole class society, before the school decides that the one being bullied is the problem, and then in their confused minds removes the problem by removing the latest target of the abusers of power. The parents of these targets typically speak of a blindness on the part of the teachers they attempted to tell, a blindness towards 'bullying' or mob-behavior, blindness towards the phenomenon type itself. I have said it many times before: 'Bullying among teacher candidates makes teacher candidates blind to bullying even to bullying among children (cf. Seeking universal Didactic Dominance – and getting it, ... Soerfjord 2016). The set of behaviors described above constitutes the enabling of bullying and mob-behavior. Not only that, it even constitutes 'designed reinforcement of bullying', a directly harmful learning environment design in teacher training. An institute-leader who doesn't see it as harmful is simply not qualified for her job. I wrote so to the Institute for Teacher-training and School-research (Norw.: Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS) as early as September 2015. These lecturers' abuses of theory and basic scientific principles in the lecture hall, followed by the same lecturers non-response when addressed about the actual Piaget-quotes, followed by the abuses of science by the one lecturer officially designated to respond, ending in the series of office-holders' cooking of reports (closely coordinated with the practice venues), all preceded my written accusation that the Institute leader herself is gravely incompetent, an accusation I addressed to the top leadership of the university, with copies sent to central government, who are about as unwilling to do anything about this as the king would be able to even if he wanted. The difference is that central government CAN do something, at any moment. So can the Parliament. The trouble is getting one of the Parliament groups to understand enough of this to muster the necessary will-power. That hasn't happened yet. I managed to get an email from one. The email asked me to cut all of this down to one page. I replied that it cannot be cut down to one page and proceeded to merely offer the key phrases that describe the main content of five of my articles, which took exactly one page in a small font size. I asked them to invite me so I can explain all of this by speaking directly to them, and I attached the five articles. I have not heard from them since. I should have. Quotation-accuracy "a matter of interpretation", you say, Miss X? No, fool, it isn't. And to all at the UiO's Faculty of alleged 'Ed-Sci': No, you harmful clowns, it isn't no explanation necessary. Speaking up against quoteand citation fraud is the duty of anyone in academics who identifies such forgery or is told about it. Doing the opposite, keeping silent or hiding it, is a crime against science and possibly against humanity. Defending the forgery explicitly can only be done by 'argumentum ad hominem', a logical fallacy. It is abuse of power; abuse of the office one occupies. That is what all the involved employees of the Institute for Teacher-training and School-research (ILS) of the University of Oslo (UiO), Norway, are guilty of. Politics needs to be designed to remove these fools from office. They are evidently not merely incompetent, but genuinely dishonest too, which makes them thieves as well, thieves of salaries that do not appropriately apply to them. And we can't have that. or, I should say, science can't have that, not 'Ed-Sci'. Not any 'Sci'. 'Thinking alike' how 'fault-recognition didactics' rests on the falsified Piaget-quotes and produces or contributes to anxiety: So, this is the broad strokes with the magnifying glass directed towards a representative set of instances of HOW all individuals within a subculture come to 'think alike' (cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance and getting it, by various means other than scientific; by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), June 17, 2016) I mentioned Gore Vidal saying the economic elite, the grabbers of most of the wealth in the world, "do not need to conspire, (because) they all think alike", and in the June 17 article I say the underlying issue in the case of the university sphere is how the members of the 'ruling campus-group' all come to 'think alike'. I now quote my note (in the same article) on 'team-work' in Steve Jobs' Apple: "In Steve Jobs' notion of 'team-work' ideas rub against ideas, and the top leadership keeps all the members contained which is a key notion so that no contributor of ideas can be excluded by the team, thereby the best idea being allowed to prevail in spite of fierce debate within the team. Social power is irrelevant in such a 'protected and contained team-work' sphere. THAT is where true 'team-work' can happen. The other way of doing it is the fake that must be rooted out before 'team-work' can reliably serve its just purpose, which it must before it can be justifiably used at all." This holds true for the work environment and doubly so for teacher-training. Then there is this: 1. The bottom line is: the LAW dictates for certain principles to actually be taught to all children in Norway, which, at the same time, is an order for all institutions of teacher training to actually educate all teacher candidates in the art of actually practicing the same principles; which dictates that the same institutions actually a)design the higher education learning environment accordingly, create a design that enables and enforces the practice of these principles, as well as b)actually practice these principles themselves. The principles dictated are many, most importantly 1:'a scientific way of thinking', 2:'critical thinking' (the demand for self-reflection thereby coming back to haunt the Institute of teacher-training), as well as 3:tolerance and a 4:liberal mindset to match the scientifically critical look at things. All four elements are explicitly stipulated in §1 of Norway's Law for Teaching. They bear directly on what is now going on, whether it be the 'anchor point of methodology' in general or the abuse and forgery of Piaget and Vygotsky in particular, or the UNIVERSAL instalment of a mere opinion on didactics, forcing ALL to do their didactics in accordance with ONE OPINION on it. It is the 'field'local civil disobedience of §1 of the Law for Teaching we are seeing here. I told the Minister of Education (in 2016 Torbjørn Røe Larsen) precisely that, in front of cameras and an audience. Does he get it? Hardly. And who cares? The most horrible idea with respect to this law ('The Law for Teaching') exists among lecturers at the UiO's Institute for Teacher-training and School-research ('ILS' of the 'uv-fak', 'Faculty of Ed-Sci'), the idea that that law has no direct and no specific validity in higher education, hence not in teacher training, since higher education has its own set of laws. The fact of that matter is this: The 'Law for higher education' (I have read it) is apparently excessively general and non-specific in almost every respect and in almost every matter. That is so because it, strictly speaking, need not repeat all the laws that it rests on. But this particular logicaljudicial relation is exploited by anyone who tends to wish for greater elbow-room in their 'management' practices, particularly in the 'management' of pedagogical faith on campus, teacher-training in particular. The Law for Teaching specifies all the principles that are to be taught AND practiced to and among children, HENCE taught and practiced to and among teacher candidates. There is, thus, a horrible deficiency of insight philosophical and legal-wise insight in Ed-Sci with respect to the primary task of Ed-Sci in general and in teacher training in particular. It is a collective cock-up of the collective thought process we see in this particular mind-block, as well as in the other essential mind-blocks I have demonstrated above, a blocking of the collective power of judgment; or, I should say, a collective blocking of 'the power of judgment' itself within the individual members of the collective thought process, the one we call 'consensus'. 2. Then there is the hermeneutic perspective that is required by the actual facts of this problematic subject-matter, but is missing in the orders passed down from the university's payers of salaries-in-exchange-for-domain-responsibility in the local social-academic sphere within the larger university sphere: The principles I quoted from §1 of Norway's Law for Teaching implicitly dictate 'the rule of evidence' and 'inclusion' as two core principles; the latter meaning 'inclusion' as a 'strategy, method and behavior', in all of teacher training. It therefore EXPLICITLY FORBIDS ANY learning-environment-design for teacher training that enables or makes possible bullying of selected or accidental individual teacher candidates by other teacher candidates, including acts of threatening peers with exclusion from 'obligatory team-work'. Human rights are held by each individual, they are not rights that are handed to each 'group' along with a group-empowering right to portion these rights to its individual members. No group or dominant alliance of a group, therefore, has the right to deny an individual any of these rights. Human rights are 'non-mediated', they can be placed in no median hand, the overseeing or power to assign or withhold such rights cannot be delegated to any 'group leader' or alliance of a group, nor to a gang of Institute administrators, nor to a pack of dominant lecturers regardless of their title. Science is a benign dictatorship. Some 'fields' within humanistic science have a hard time understanding what that means. It is time to take the power of subjective judgment in this matter away from the universities altogether. [1] Removing the existing monopoly on teacher education, and [2] limiting the evaluation-mandate in all practical-performance-evaluation within the space between course-initiation and graduation, with a narrow window of exceptions in cases of acute emotional or mental illness or extreme speech deficiency (cf. Scared Stiff..., a documentary); which leaves all matters of judgment where premises may in part overlap with those of personality-preference-judgment in the hands of future interviewers of job-applicants, where they belong. That is how to remove a very problematic type of space that for a long time has allowed conflicting interests to influence formal public discourse in Norway's offices of Ed-Sci, without anyone even thinking of it as the pure corruption that it really is. The rights I point to are human rights. They are not given by a group or alliance 'on behalf of' a government or responsible institution, and not even by governments. The rights exist independently. A government is merely responsible for the noninterference with these rights. But the key relation that eludes the simple-minded is this: a government is responsible to each individual rather than to any institution or 'group' on behalf of the members therein. A higher education learning environment design that in fact does delegate a quantity of social power that in practice enables an institution or group to pass judgment on matters that involve the granting or withholding of such rights is therefore in fact violating the same human rights by the very act of 'delegating' the social power to operate rules and methods that in themselves constitute the possibility of mediators to deny them to selected or accidental individuals. It is thus unlawful because all of the law rests on the constitution and human rights for planners, educators and administrators to enable or even passively, tacitly or methodologically allow the opportunity for anyone (socially dominant or 'victim') within a 'group' involved in obligatory group-work to discriminate, exclude or threaten (implicitly or explicitly) another member of the group with discrimination, exclusion or other consequences that affect such obligatory participation. It is also unlawful for the same (planners/educators/administrators) to validate or not interfere with and not reverse such when it is happening or has happened; whether the exclusion, censure, discrimination or threats are verbal or communicated by failure to communicate, or by other gestures or methods, and the participation obligatory in order to pass a course or an element of a course. It is equally unlawful to not interfere with such when one holds an administrative position in higher education or government – even when one's office is outside of the alleged, claimed or perceived geographical or professional - 'sphere of local self-rule'. The "I am not familiar with the particular case" that we hear politicians revert to is no exculpatory or mitigating circumstance, no excuse. The politician who co-authors principles or laws and refrains from interfering in particular instances is as guilty as the local abuser. It is therefore UNLAWFUL for Miss Maria Sofie Olsson (at Flaatestad 4th to 10th grade school outside Oslo) to NOT interfere when I (as I did) inform her of acutely ongoing bullying tactics and direct threats from one particular young female teacher candidate (Miss Ann-Helen Strøm) in the so-called 'group-work'. It is equally unlawful for Maria Sofie's superior, Miss May Britt Esse Berge, to NOT interfere when she is a witness to it along with over 30 teacher candidates in plenum and I email her to fill her in on the massive number of similar incidents involving the same female co-candidate, including her censure of three other male co-candidates of mine in that particular practice-venue-school (John Bøthun Liøen, from the west coast), Erik Haugen Aspaas (young ex-top-handballplayer from Oslo) and Rune Valle (from northern Norway) were systematically and consistently verbally obstructed from participating verbally throughout the next day's 'group-work', until we all just split up after two hours or so. No one other than this particular female candidate were allowed to elaborate on their ideas, and couldn't even finish a sentence before Ann-Helen's voice broke through with the words "No, I think we should..." and repeated her original ideasketch, which no one were allowed to supply with contrasting elements. She reevaluated everyone's judgment with express velocity, mid-sentence, and turned it down without understanding what it was she turned down, until one after the other among her group-members gave in, 7 in all in the larger 'team'. The two less aggressive young women present gave in first, by clamming up and auto-deferring to Ann-Helen every time I asked each of them to share their view. They were genuinely afraid to speak, these two women, had grown afraid during the abuse by that classmate. This is what Dr. Oeystein Gilje and the team he is now making his career within, refuse to understand: teacher candidates need to LEARN the principles that hold for healthy and productive cooperation, and they need to learn that IN THEORY BEFORE they are told to enter a chamber and 'cooperate'. It is simply too amateurish to just allow the most stubborn-minded and dominant load-talking over-sensitive passive-aggressive nutcase to verbally take over 'the group' and make it HER group I have only seen females behave this way in 'group-work'. Not only is that too amateurish to fathom for the averagely naive scientifically minded academic outside of Pedagogy, it is down-right unlawful in this particular 'field' and WHY is that? Because of the validity of the Law for Teaching ("Opplaeringsloven") in the field charged with the task of teaching teacher candidates HOW to teach the principles ordered by that law! Is anyone among the readers not understanding this? If so, feel free to email me. But if you don't care, I will recommend you get out of academia, and clear out of campus; because if you do not care, you do not belong in it. Oslo, 05.Jan.2017 Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) ksoerfjord@gmail.com ksorfjord@gmail.com