Postcript: Journey's End

Special for the Prometheus edition of “The Frank Family That Survived”

The long odyssey behind this book - my odyssey- did not end with the publication of the first edition of this book in summer 2004. Nor could it really end until I had visited two places that I had "hitherto visited in my imagination but not in actuality: Breitenheim, the main site of the first chapter, "Fatherland," and the place where the Frank family saga begins; and No. 14 Pieter van der Zandestraat, The Hague, the streetside Nat a half a mile away from German headquarters in the Binnenhof where, as the reader has seen, the Franks hid in plain sight from the Nazis for three years, and miraculously, survived. The reasons for my not visiting the Hunsruck, as the still remote region of the Rhineland where the Franks hailed from, is called, were ditterent from my reasons for not having visited No. 14. In the event, as much as I had wished to visit Breitenheim, the hamlet where Myrtil was born and raised-and which, at least to judge from the photos of it on the regional web site, appeared virtually unchanged from the old photos of it I had seen back at my work desk in America - as well as Meisenheim, the near by town where the Franks attended shul, I was not able to schedule a separate trip to Germany in order to do so.

In any event, I felt that the material I did have at hand, including the various descriptive eyewitness testimonies of my cousins Celia and Lotte, who had visited the area, the exhaustive commemorative book about Breitenheim published an its 7ooth anniversary, etc., etc., were more than sufficient to do justice to Max's and Myrtil's original milieu. So, I only visited the Hunsruck in my mind, as it were - and, as "Fatherland" bears witness, spent a good deal of time vicariously milling about.

Nevertheless, I certainly wanted to go to the real Breitenheim, if not for the book's sake, then for mine. Of course, I had to see the Frank house, if I could, and I resolved to do, so as soon as feasible following the end of my residency at Cornell.

By contrast, my failure, or inability to knock on the door of No. 14 and actually go inside, not just stand outside as I had done on my innumerable visits over the years, as I noted in the Afterword, had been the result of something else 1 had been lacking - courage, I suppose - not time.

I certainly knew what the interior looked like; how could I not after all of those interviews with Flory, Sybil, and Dorrit? I even had the original blueprint. Nevertheless something had always held me back from actually crossing the threshold, just as it had when I had accompanied my mother on her initial postwar visit to the site of the Franks' wartime cavalry in the long ago summer of 1965. But, of course, I wanted to visit No. 14, as well. Then, I knew, my journey, as well as the Frank family's one, would truly be over.

As things turned out, on my first trip to the Continent following the publication of "The Frank Family That Survived," in October 2004, I managed to find the time, and the courage, to accomplish both of these things.

First I paid an emotional - and eye-opening - visit to the Franks' old headwaters in the Hunsruck. Then, several days and a six-hour train ride later, I found myself once again in The Hague, this time crossing the threshold of No. 14 and opening that Pandora's box, too. It was, taken together, quite a journey - or journey's end, I should say. The epiphanies came fast and furious.

THE HUNSRUCK

THE FIRST SHOCK, a pleasant one I have to say, took place as I entered Meisenheim's towering former synagogue, now known as its Haus der Begegnung, or assembly hall, as the guest of the formidable man who had helped save it, the retired town pastor, Gunther Lenhoff.

To be sure, I had been told by my Israeli cousin Lotte, family archivist and granddaughter of the family patriarch, Max, that a synagogue existed in Meisenheim, just down the road apiece from Breitenheim (as we Americans say), and that the Franks attended shul there, covering the two miles separating their place of worship and their home-cum-winery every Friday night by foot. But that was about all I knew.

assumed - wrongly - that the sacred place had been a small structure, perhaps only a room, After all, how large could the synagogue be in a town so small that even today, the current population of Meisenheim is just over two thousand, roughly the same as a century ago - it is impossible to locate on all but the most detailed maps of Deutschland? I assumed-again wrongly, or partly wrongly, as it turned out - that the shul had been destroyed, or fired, during the Kristallnacht riots of November, 1938, as so many of its sister temples around

Germany had been, including the near by one in Kaiserlauten, a sad photo of whose charred remains I had come across during my archival research. And if it had somehow survived that "spontaneous" pogrom, I assumed that it had been wiped out during the others to come during the yet-darker remaining years of the Thousand Year Reich. Again, wrong.

Indeed, the Meisenheim shul wasn't even on the to do list I had hastily put together the day before on the long, winding, scenic train ride from Frankfurt, sixty miles to the north, through the lush hill and dale of the Moselle Valley to Bad Kreuznach, the nearest train station to my eventual destination. One can imagine, then, my astonishment ~- and delight - to find that the three story Meisenheim shul was not only several times larger than I had thought (and then some), but that it had been miraculously - and that is really the word - rehabilitated and transformed into a gleaming interdenominational assembly hall, complete with an elaborate ground floor museum scrupulously chronicling the history and destruction of the area's Jews. I knew that Berlin had its Holocaust Museum. But little Meisenheim? Astonished isn't the word. Amazed is more like it.

Pastor Lenhoff, a warm, slightly gruff man his early 60s who speaks fluent English, unlike most people in the district, outlined the remarkable tale behind the former synagogue's salvation as he drove me from the tiny gasthaus just outside of Meisenheim, to the venerable heart of the nine hundred year old town itself, looking much as it must have, with the soaring spire of its medieval kirsche piercing the sky, as when my great-great-great grandfather, David Frank, first beheld it back in the 1740s. The pastor, who also serves as custodian of the Haus der Begegnung, was, he said, scheduled to meet a busload of domestic sightseers from Frankfurt who were making their own pilgrimage to the reconsecrated house, evidently now a well-known site, later that samemorning. Learning of my serendipitous pilgrimage the night before from the local historian, Karen Gross-after all, Meisenheim is a small town - Lenhoff had agreed to include me 'in the tour. And I am very glad that he did.

Personally I had been ignorant of the arrangement until the burly cleric materialized at breakfast, in between orange juice and scrambled eggs, and determinedly ushered me to his waiting car. The understanding I had had with Ms. Gross, whom I had been helpfully referred to by the regional tourist authority-whence I discovered that she was from Binghamton, New York, of all places - was that I was to go to Breitenheim.

Breitenheim was tomorrow, Meisenheim was today: Jawo mein Pastor! Ours not to reason why! Pastor Gunther promised to explain everything. And so he did.

And so, as my impassioned guide raced into the old walled town, I learned the tragic story of the rise and fall of Meisenheim's Jewish community, which is essentially the story of the rise and fall of German Jewry in fine: I learned how, by the late 19th century, the by then well-assimilated Jewish community of 169 constituted nearly 10 percent of the town's population; how the prosperous and secure Jewish congregants - presumably including my great-great grandfather, Gottlieb Frank, then residing in contiguous Breitenheim pooled their resources, and, in 1890, just before my grandfather, Myrtil was born, erected a soaring four story synagogue. "It was the pride of the town," Lenhoff asserted, keeping his eyes on the winding road. Then, he continued, telescoping the story, for we were approaching the place, came the Nazi era, and Kristallnacht. "You know what happened then." I didn't, actually. The minister duly enlightened me: yes, the Franks' shul was put to the torch, and it most assuredly would have been destroyed; however, as Gunther explained, because the temple was located next to local Nazi party headquarters, the indigenous decided only to set fire to the interior. The building itself was spared and left vacant during the war years, small solace for the harried, vestigial Jewish congregation, which, like the scores of other Jewish communities in the Rhineland was completely expunged by 1942, most of its remaining members deported to the concentration camps at Theresienstadt and Gur, in the Pyrenees. One of the original congregants, who had fled to France during the war, did, in fact, return to live in Meisenheim following the war, said Lenhoff, who himself moved to Meisenheim in the 1980s. "But, of course she is gone now. The old, fire-scarred building was nearly gone by then, too. Purchased by a developer, it had been slated to be converted into a supermarket.

"That is when I stepped in," Pastor Lenhoff said, still horrified at the thought of what would have been the old synagogue's final desecration. "We want to have relations with good relations with Israel, and we are turning old synagogues into supermarkets?! How can we allow this?!”

Of course, Lenhoff himself have the funds to save thé building: But, fortunately, a number of other equally indignant, equaly conscience-stricken Meisenheimers whom he hurriedly contacted did. But what to do with the building, its blackened interior still showing the scars of Kristallnacht? With no Jews left, and - inspite of the return in modest numbers of Jews to some of the larger German cities - no realistic prospect of cultivating a new one, the temple's saviors decided stroke of genius to turn the violated building into an inter denominational meeting and culture house, The ground floor where the original peys and altar had been,it was decred, with the blessing of the town's fathers, would a museum dedieated to the preservation of the memory of the town's, and the region's, vanished Jewish way of life.

It was certainly a lot to take in for a 15-minute car trip. And then, all of a sudden, we were there.

I was dumbfounded. I knew, of course, that there were people in Germany - good Germans, if I might use that expression - Bentiles committed to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, and what preceded it, but to meet one in the flesh was a revelation. "I was of the generation," said Gunther, his voice rising as he shut off the car engine, who asked their fathers when they returned tom the war if they returned" (Lenhoff's father, a soldier in the Wehnnacht who served in Russia, was captured, sent to Siberia, before Ainally returning home in 1951), "how could this" - happen? How?"

Quickly, for the Frankfurt group would be arriving shortly, the cleric cum curator escorted me into the meticulously assembled Jewish museum on the ground floor, where the altar and pews used to be. A bus exhaust sounded: the group had amived. The pastor excused me, leaving me in my specchlessness to examine the various exhibit cases filled with photos, paper ephemera, and various relics dating from the Jewish community's great days, including the central role it had once played in the local wine industry. There was a familiar piece of paper in one of the cases. I looked closer. It was a leaf of my great-grandfather's stationery, the same one Lotte had sent me, the one with the elaborate letterhead showing the old Frank house-cum-wine cellar which I had used to conjure up Max and Myrtil's lost world back in America. And now here I was. Next to it was a bottle of Max's Wine. There was one more mind-blower: a plaque on the wall of the museum, a gift from the Isracli Franks, "dedicated," the carefully sculpted lettering proclaimed, to the memory of Max and Johanna Frank from their relatives in Israel and America." Unbeknownst to me, Lotte's family had arranged for her grandparents to be memorialized in their former place of worship and had been kind enough to include us. her American relations, in the inscription. First we American Franks heard of it! Astonished though I was by all these Frank-related artifacts, as well as impressed by the care that had been taken to assemble and display them, I have to say I was no less astonished, and moved, by the dioramara ringing the room putting the story of the Franks and their less fortunate co-relgionists into its full, harrowing context, especially the nook devoted to the Nazi era, which detailed the fate of the 21 Meisenheimers who were killed in concentration camps. Next to it was a map of Germany and the other occupied territories showing where the major Nazi concentration and prison camps were located, including the ones at Amersfoort and Vught in the Netherlands. I was equally impressed, when, once the tour group entered the room, its justifiably proud curator in tow, to see that this was the section which drew the greatest attention. These Germans remembered "My name is Gordon Frank Sander," I said, finally finding my voice, "and I am proud to be here."

There were still two more things I wanted to do while I was in the vicinity. First, I wanted to try and find my great-grandfather's grave; I had seen an old photo of it from the 1930s. Amongst the various illustrative materials on the wall of the museum was a photo, apparently recent, of the town's old Jewish cemetery, set in a forest clearing, looking in good shape. Perhaps the pastor could help me find it, and Max, as well? "I haven't been to the cemetery in 20 years," Gunther said, after he had bid his other guests farewell, "but, why not, let's try." So off we zoomed into the countryside, up a mountain; then another, then up a dirt road; then by foot across a stream - the good pastor was beginning to show signs of tiring, I have to say, at this point. Then, after scaling a picket fence with a huff and a puff (whoops!

careful'), we were in the cemetery, with its hundred or so moss-covered graves, rising out of the mist, as if in a dream, surely the most beautiful graveyard I have ever seen. Why the fathers of the extinet congregation decided to set it in this virtually inaccessible locale is mystifying. However, inconvenient though it was for the decedents' descendants, the mountainous locale had also been the graveyard's salvation. None of the graves, I was relieved to note, had been desecrated. Little wonder: what Nazi (or neo-Nazi) could find this place? And so off we strode through the graveyard, in search of Max. Gunther took one end of the graveyard, I the other. Here, Max...Where are you, Max?

Alas, Max was nowhere to be found. No matter, I assured the pastor, as we made our laborious way back to Gunther's car, turning pastoral myself, he knows that we are here. Indeed. And I thanked this redoubtable man for one of the most memorable days of my life. That left Breitenheim. In the event, the trip to Breitenheim, the next day, was also memorable, if in a different, not so pleasant sort of way. As I said, I had yearned to visit the old Frank house, to go inside, to see where Myrtil and Julius had grown up, perhaps see a bit of the old wine cellar. Of course, I had to see the house! Well, with Ms. Gross leading the way, I did indeed see Breitenheim, or most of whatever there is of my ancestral town- hamlet is more accurate - there is, or was, to see; about thirty houses grouped around an intersection. At one point there had been a store, told me, but it had closed. There had also been a gasthaus, the same one I had seen in the Breitenheim book, the one in the photo of the eight festive, tankard-bearing men, all but one of whom would soon die in the impending war, taken in 1938, from the aforementioned Breitenheim book. The one, I thought had been the Frank house. No, the scrupulous Ms. Gross corrected me, I was wrong. That house, the house in the letterhead, was around the corner.

And so it was.

No, I didn't go in; nor did I try. Anyway, the current occupant, the putative daughter of the former Nazi mayor of the town, the same one who had putatively bought it from Max after he had gone bust during the hyperinflation of the Twenties, did not, when she suddenly opened the door and looked at me-was that a scowl I saw on her face appear too eager to have me inside. Did she know who I was? Perhaps she guessed. It wouldn't have been hard. I tried to catch her attention; she had come into the yard to do take in her laundry. Again, she looked away. "This area was very brown during the war," Karen had told me the night before.

So I gathered. And thus, from one day to the next, I suppose you could say, I saw, or glimpsed the two faces of Germany on my Rhenish sortie: the forward-looking one, exemplified by Gunther, the "good" Germany, if you will, the Germany my grandfather loved.…and the other one, the one he fled to Holland for. That night, my final night in Meisenheim, I took a walk in the dark, over the river Glan, glistening in the moonlight, to the lush park on the other side, laid down and looked up at the sky. One last surprise, a final epiphany: the skies were clear, clear enough to see shooting stars, something I had never seen. in the polluted industrial skies over Europe before. And then it occurred to me: these were the same skies my grandfather had seen when he was a young boy, perhaps even from this same spot. In a way, I felt, I had come home-at least as much as I, as a Jew, could feel at home this bucolic corner of the country that my grandparents, and parents, had once called, with pride, their Fatherland, before the Nazi deluge.

NO. 14 PIETER VAN DEN ZANDESTRAAT

So much for the Hunsruck. So much for my German roots; and for the moment, so long. Now it was time to fast forward from the late 1800s and early 1900s to the thousand days of 1942, and 1943, and 1944, and 1945, to the time, and the place, when time stopped for the Franks and they "dived under" to escape their venomous former countrymen. One more stone to turn over. Time to visit No. 14 Pieter van den Zandestraat. If - if - I could get in! The "success" of my German sortie gave me courage. There was no stopping me now. And so, the very next Saturday afternoon - I figured that I would have a better chance of gaining entry if I came then - there I was, once again, striding through the cobblestone streets of The Hague's centrum west, headed for the same fateful entranceway I had first stood before when I was an impressionable 14-year-old boy, accompanying my mother back to her wartime Golgotha. I caught my breath and rang the bell once, then several times, No answer, Through half-closed eyes the cul-de-sac looked exactly the same as it had in 1960s, or, for that matter, every other time I had visited it since; only the upscale cars parked on the Dutch street hinted at the centrally located neighborhood's recent gentrification. Other than that, and the prewar Mondriaan-patterned front glass window, through which the sequestered Franks once peered out - when they dared to peer out - now replaced by one large clear, glass window, nothing seemed to have changed. The curtains were drawn, just as they had been during the Franks' long concealment; just as they were when Dorrit and I returned in 19 60, just as they were when I had returned, in 1974, and 1977, and 2002, and 2003. I rang the bell a fifth time. I was tempting' fate now. The neighbors of whomever lived at No. 14 began to peer at the intruder - and on

such a small street, especially a Dutch street; any non -resident is a potential intruder. Did anybody live at No. 14? There were no plants or other evident signs of life in the window, as there usually are in Holland. Perhaps the place was in the process of being rented. Had I come for nothing? If so, why wasn't the current occupant home on Saturday afternoon? Aren't all Dutchmen home on Saturday afternoon? In any event, this one wasn't. And all those pairs of eyes driling holes in my back were making me nervous. Time to leave. Perhaps later yes, later: Disappointed, yet still hopeful, I left a note under the door of No. 14 stating who I was, how I was the author of a book about a Jewish family who had hidden from the Germans at this address, and so forth and so on, and that I would be back later, and so forth and so on. Then, depressed at having worked up the courage to finally knock on that door for nothing, I returned to my hotel and fell into a deep sleep.

Take two. Several hours later, having refortified myself with several jonge genevers I made my way once again through the dark, somewhat macabre streets of centrum west, gulped, and rang the bell of No. 14 once again.

Again nothing. Then, magically a light came on. So, someone did live at No. 14. Now, nerves still getting the better of me, I doubted that the current occupant would, in fact, let me in. I worried that my strange note had put him (or her) off. Who cared that my family had once hid from the Germans there? Anyway it was late, and, as I well knew from my own experience, one doesn't go knocking on people's doors late at night, unless it's an emergency. I was in luck. The man who opened the door turned out to be friendly. Yes, he had read my note, Yes, he said, I could come inside. He had heard something about his apartment being used during the war by a family of onderduikers. Klaas Pen was his name; he worked for a Dutch airline. He poured me a drink. I gave him a copy of my book. There were some surprises here, as well. Firstly, there was the size of the place. The handsomely removed apartment, which Pen said he had purchased several years before, seemed considerably larger than the dank chamber that had been described to me. But then, I realized, the Franks had only used part of the flat. It was a nice place for a single man, especially with the spacious back garden, something that Flory, Dorrit, and Sybil had completely left out of their accounts. No wonder: they never used it.

The other surprise was a secret compartment hidden in the back of one of the closets. Pen told me that he had discovered it when he had bought the apartment five years before. The tiny space, no more than one. hundred cubic feet in all, conceivably might have been large enough for the four Franks to stand in, if they were standing ramrod straight, during a raid. Yet, oddly, neither my mother nor my grandmother had ever mentioned it. It certainly wasn't used during the slave labor raid on the street in November 1944, when the Franks had their closest call. Perhaps my grandfather felt that there was no point; that the thorough going Germans, expert at finding such hidden spaces by then, would have discovered theirs as well, as soon as they broke down the door.

Klaas and I sat there, nursing our drinks, reflecting on the miracle that had transpired within these same walls. Why did the Franks survive, I wondered again? How did they get through it all? How did they manage to survive for over a thousand days while hiding, essentially, in plain sight?

One thing struck me again: the Franks’ neighbors on Pieter van der Zandestraat deserve some of the credit for their against-the-odds fate. Surely, someone must have suspected that something fishy was going on behind the drawn curtains at No. 24, what with Jeanne and all the Franks' other helpers' constant excursions in and out, not to mention those of Myrtil's. Still, no one told, not even during the hongerwinter, when a successful tip might have meant a possibly life-saving reward from the Nazis.

"This was a good street," I said.

"Still is," said Klaas. I finished my drink and left. I felt at peace.

I hadn’t come home - although the franks had indeed once considered Holland their home, they never considered No. 14 anything more, or less, than their hiding place - but I felt that I had visited another, very sacred place, indeed.

My journey was over.

THE END

Sweden's Government Loosens the Reins on Tightly Controlled University System

From The Chronicles of Higher Education, October 7, 1992

Conservatives increase budgets and enrollment and offer a blueprint for regulation

Sweden’s conservative-led government is making good on its pledge to revitalize the country's higher-education system. Since taking office one year ago, the right-of-center coalition government has increased the annual budget for higher education by 10 percent, or about $100 million, and has added a total of 6,000 new places for undergraduate students. More important, it has drafted a comprehensive blueprint for deregulating and decentralizing the country's tightly controlled network of six universities and 29 colleges. The plan, which the government will submit to the Riksdag or parliament, this week, is the talk of the campuses here. Among other things, the proposed legislation returns to individual universities and colleges decision-making authority in admissions, curriculum, hiring, promotion, and the use of resources. "Anything that is not expressly regulated can be decided at a local level by the individual university or college, the legislation states. It also gives students more flexibility in what fields they study, and contains Sweden's first officially codified guarantee of academic freedom since the 1800’s. "In a word, we are opening up the universities,” says Leif Lindfors, the Assistant Under Secretary for Higher Education and one of the chief architects of the restructuring. "'Our new motto is accessibility.” 

Widespread Political Support 

The plan, which incorporates ideas proposed by the national students' and faculty unions, has widespread political support and is expected to quickly pass into law, probably by the end of next month. Implementing the reforms will become the responsibility of a Swedish-American academic who has been hired to head the revamped system. Stig Hagstrom, who had been a Stanford University professor of materials science since 1986, began a six-year term as chancellor of Sweden’s university system last week. A graduate of the University of Uppsala, he says the planned changes will bring healthy competition to higher education here. I believe in competition, Mr. Hagstrom says. "Competition brings better students. It also breeds diversity. The legislation represents the biggest change in Swedish higher education since the mid-1970's when the ruling Social Democrats instituted a highly centralized system known as högskola. Under that plan, the education of undergraduates was reorganized along rigid curricular lines designed to lead to clearly defined careers, and responsibility for decisions on matters academic as well as financial was transferred from the campuses to Stockholm. Those changes were intended to make the country's campuses more open to children of working-class parents, but statistics have shown that the reforms had just the opposite effect. The proportion of university students with parents who are “ordinary workers" has declined since högskola was instituted in 1977. Observers here generally agree that the quality of the entire university system declined under högskola (The Chronicle, December 4, 1991). The Social Democrat administration that was ousted in last year's elections actually had been taking steps to fix the high-er-education system when it was turned out of office. The new government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt, the head of the Moderate Party and the first conservative to lead the country in more than six decades, came to office pledging to reconstruct "the academic estate" and make Swedish education the best in Europe. Even given such bold promises, the Bildt government "is clearly running much faster, and much further, than anyone had anticipated,” says Annika Ekstrom, the education editor of Svenska Dagbladet, a Stockholm daily. 

Diluting the Bureaucracy 

The government moved quickly to scale down the bureaucracy in Stockholm, which was seen by many here as contributing to the university system's problems. A number of agencies have been abolished, including the Center for Planning and Co- ordination, the Planning and Equipment Board for Universities and Colleges, and six regional-assistance councils. Those involved in education matters have been impressed by the stirring language the new legislation uses to explain its rationale for decentralizing and deregulating the higher-education system. "There are two essential motives for dissociating higher education from the state,” the bill says. "The first is that a progressive advancement of knowledge requires freedom, independence, and competition. The second motive is one of principle: A society which supports diversity and which is aware of an all-embracing state authority must safeguard the crucial counterbalances, among which are free universities and university colleges.” The six universities that anchor the system are at Göteborg, Linköping, Lund, Stockholm, Umeà, and Uppsala. The 29 “university colleges” are roughly equivalent to U.S. junior colleges. The 4,000 undergraduate places added this fall combined with 2.000 added last spring bring total enrollment in the system to 169,000. Providing more places in higher education has been a pressing need in Sweden as well as a chief demand of the national students' union. Admission continues to be highly competitive, with more than three applicants for every place. This year the number of applicants hit a record 92,000. The graduation rate, however, has been declining. Between 12,000 and 13,000 undergraduate degrees have been awarded in each of several recent years, down significantly from between 16,000 and 17,000 a year in the early 1970's. 

Report Questions Quality 

Such statistics led to a nationwide consensus that change was needed, and allowed the new government to act decisively to try to halt the system's decline. The government also was spurred into action by the release last spring of a report by a blue-ribbon committee of academic leaders that found the quality of teaching and research in several subject areas to be "unacceptably low.” The ambitious university reform is another way the Bildt government is delivering on its promise to make education a central feature of its plan for economic growth. "Increasing the number of university graduates and raising standards in education and research will be crucial for Sweden in the future,” wrote Per Unckel, a highly regarded conservative politician who is now Minister of Education, in his introduction to the higher-education legislation. "Only through advanced education and research can Sweden hold its own against tough international competition. The legislation -actually more like a manifesto, with many of the particulars to be worked out later- calls for the complete revamping of the lines of authority between Stockholm and the campus-es. Individual institutions will be responsible for monitoring their own educational quality, and a yet-to-be-named national education secretariat will monitor quality throughout the system. Telling administrators who are used to deferring to Stockholm to think for themselves is one thing, but getting them to do it is quite another. The question facing higher education today is whether the system's quality can be maintained and upgraded under the chaotic conditions certain to attend deregulation. Mr. Hagstrom, the new chief, says it can. "In the past, there has been too much stress on equality,” he says. "Now there will be greater stress on quality. Before, there was too much talk about how to do things, as opposed to what things we were doing.”

He says he hopes that the revamped system will help remedy Sweden’s “'negative intellectual

balance of trade" by making it more attractive for top scholars to remain in the country, and by attracting more students and scholars from abroad. He also intends to address the issue of declining teaching quality and standards by making it more difficult for research-minded professors to "buy their way out of teaching”. "I hope to bring the joy of teaching back to the Swedish system,” says Mr. Hagstrom. "This is another thing we have tended to take for granted.” Mr. Hagstrom says he is not sure how the legislation's most controversial clause, which calls for some institutions to fall under a new form of non-state control, will turn out. "I don't think we can have private colleges as you do in the U.S.),” he says. "The money isn't there. Private higher education is virtually nonexistent in Sweden; the one independent college is heavily subsidized by the state.

Privatization Opposed

The powerful faculty and students’ unions, which otherwise support the new legislation, are opposed to any effort to privatize higher education, in part because it might diminish their influence. "We think there should be less policy,” says David Samuelson, vice-president of the national students' union, "but there should still be some policy. Nevertheless, we think the new plan is essentially a good one.” So does the faculty union. "'It's an excellent blueprint,” says Bengt Gustafson, the union's negotiator. However, he says faculty members would like to see the government put even more money into the system. The government proposes to spend a total of $3.6-billion on higher education over the next three years. Mr. Hagstrom is optimistic: “We will be competitive again.”

Memory Wars in Latvia

From The New York Review of Books, July 2022

Riga, with its well-preserved medieval center and art nouveau district, has long been known as the Pearl of the Baltics. Thirty years after the restoration of the Republic of Latvia, its capital is also dotted with architectural and sculptural relics of the "Soviet time” - the occupation from 1944 to 1991. They range from the monotonous rows of five-story gray apartment blocks with which Moscow carpeted the Baltic states to the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Built between 1951 and 1961, this towering edifice. known locally as “Stalin's birthday cake”, was originally intended as a birthday gift for the dictator, who died in 1953. Latvians once regarded the building which retains its original decorative hammers and sickles as an eyesore, as well as an unpleasant reminder of Stalin who crushed the short-lived Latvian Republic in 1940 and reimposed Soviet rule over the country in 1944 after more than three years of Nazi occupation. But they don't seem to mind it anymore. The seventeenth-floor balcony offers a panoramic view of the city that is popular with tourists, on whom Riga is dependent.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, however, thrust other architectural legacies of the Soviet occupation into a dramatically different light. Today the most controversial is the Monument to the Liberators of Soviet Latvia and Riga from the German Fascist Invaders, built in 1985, during the twilight of the Soviet empire, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the Red Army's victory over Germany. Also known as the Victory Park Memorial, the monument consists of a towering obelisk and two groups of sculptures, one of which is an idealized depiction of three Soviet soldiers. At 260 feet high, it is one of the largest war memorials built by the Soviets outside of Russia and is nearly twice as tall as Riga's soaring Freedom Monument, known as Milda, built in 1935 to honor the Latvians who died during the country's war of independence between 1918 and 1920, after more than a century of Russian rule.

The Victory Park Memorial is located in an expansive park on the opposite side of the Daugava River from Milda. For many years ethnic Latvians loathed it as a symbol of Soviet rule. In 1997 the ultranationalist group Perkonkrusts tried to blow up the monument with improvised explosives, but they went off prematurely, causing only superficial damage. Two of the perpetrators died in the blast. The others were arrested, tried, and imprisoned by the Latvian government, in accordance with the agreement it had made with Russia in 1994 to protect, maintain, and care for each other's memorials and war graves, after which the Kremlin belatedly and reluctantly withdrew its remaining forces in the Baltics. Among other things, the agreement also called for the Latvian government to continue paying the pensions of the 22,000 (now 11,000) retired Russian military personnel who chose to remain in Latvia. Until recently the disputes over the Victory Park Memorial seemed to be dying down as tensions eased between the ethnic Latvian majority and the Russian-speaking minority- approximately a quarter of the country's 1.9 million people. Over the years the memorial also became the site of the Russian minority's raucous annual May 9 "Victory Celebration," as they called it. The government wasn't happy about these celebrations, but it maintained a hands-off attitude toward them. That was before February 24. Since the Russian invasion, the memorial has become a flash point for a rekindled debate about Latvia's historical memory, and the Latvian government is intent on demolishing it. On May 26, after a heated debate, the Saeima, the Latvian parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of a sweeping new law, entitled "On the Prohibition of the Display of Objects Glorifying the Soviet and Nazi Regimes and Their Dismantling in the Territory of the Republic of Latvia,” and it was formally approved on June 16. Only seventeen members of Harmony, the party that represents the Russian minority and commands a substantive if declining amount of support and two nonaffiliated members were opposed.

The legislation was the culmination of a chaotic chain of events that began with this year's May 9 commemoration, which was canceled by the government, or rather with the botched handling by the police of the protest that took place on May 10, when the hundreds of flowers that Russians were allowed to leave at the obelisk's base were hauled away, leading to a demonstration by three hundred surly pro-Russian protesters, who also confronted a group of yellow-and-blue-draped Ukrainian supporters. There was widespread criticism of the way the Riga police handled the incident, particularly from the conservative National Alliance party, one of the four parties in the govern- ing center-right coalition, and the minister of interior, Marija Golubeva, was forced to resign.

By then the drive to demolish the memorial, which had begun to gather steam after February 24, had expanded to include all three-hundred-odd Soviet-era memorials and monuments around the country, despite Riga's original commitment to protect them under the 1994 bilateral agreement. On May 12 the enraged Saeima voted to suspend that agreement "until Russia terminates breaches of international law with regard to Ukraine, including the removal of its armed forces from the territory of Ukraine and the full restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Rihards Kols, the outspoken chairman of the Saeima's foreign affairs committee, who spearheaded the legislation, explained its rationale to me. "The so-called Victory Monument has been the site of May 9 'Victory Day' celebrations since the early 2000s, when Putin came to power," he told me in his modest office across from the fortress-like mid-nineteenth-century building in the historic Old Town that is the home of the Saeima.

Over the years the monument has become a catalyst for post-Soviet nostalgia for the small section of society living under the influence of the Russian media, while most of us perceive it as a reminder of Soviet occupation and a signifier of the “Russian Mir" ideology promoted by the Kremlin abroad. The Kremlin continues to use Victory Park "as a tool to mobilize its "Russian subjects” to its own distorted view of history and demoralize the Lat vian population, one in which it is acceptable to celebrate 'Victory Day’ on May 9," said Kols. "Latvia," he pointed out, has no public holiday--or anything to celebrate, really -in the context of the

Second World War. With the change in international realities, we now have an opportunity to express our true attitude toward the monument, which has come to symbolize the Soviet-successor regime that is perpetrating crimes against humanity today in Ukraine, and remove this “thorn."

Selma Levrence, a young progressive activist and former parliamentary aide who was one of the pro-Ukrainian counterdemonstrators in Victory Park on May 10, agrees. Until recently, she maintained, "I was very much against removing the Soviet me- morial, even though the annual event there had devolved into an increasingly militaristic celebration of Putinism, as were many if not all of the people in my bubble." Latvians, particularly young Latvians, often speak of living in one of the two ethnic bubbles.” Until recently it had been my impression, having employed students from both bubbles, that the differences dividing them were dissolving. Not anymore. "Many things have radically changed since February 24," said Levrence. “There is no value or benefit it brings to Latvian society," Levrence, who recently announced her candidacy for the Saeima in the forthcoming fall elections, told me. "Of course, the removal of the monument won't solve the deeper issues of our divided society. But it is an opportunity to start from a fresh page." That is why she showed up on May 10 to confront the pro-Russian protesters there, as well as to show her support for Ukraine. Ukraine's fight is also Latvia's fight, she insisted. The reaction of the Russian embassy in Riga, which has been in a state of semi-siege since a horde of angry Latvians descended on it on February 25, the day after the invasion, was predictably sulfurous. "We are outraged by the decision of the Latvian Saeima to unilaterally suspend Article 13 of the Russian-Latvian Intergovernmental Agreement of April 30, 1994, the embassy announced.

This situation clearly demonstrates for the entire responsible international community the true face of the political elite of Latvia: cynicism, double standards, a complete rejection of the civilised ways of settling interstate issues, and brazen disregard for the fundamental principles of international law. There were, understandably, a lot of smirks when legislators read that last line. Still, it is difficult to take issue with the next one: "In Latvia, the problem of settling the score with one's own historical past is looming large.” On the other hand, not all the Latvian Russian speakers who are angry at the prospect of the monument’s demolition are supporters of Putin and his invasion of Ukraine. Some of them, including several of my acquaintance, regard Victory Park as it was originally intended--or supposedly intended: as a commemoration of the USSR's victory over Germany, even though it was followed by draconian Soviet rule. One of these is Kersti Ilves, a Russian Latvian actress who lives in Paris. Ilves says that she and her family revere Victory Park "as a memorial to the soldiers who liberated Latvia from fascism. In each family- certainly the ones I know of - there is a grandfather or a great-uncle who fought against the Nazis. That is why it is special to us.” Not, she says, because of what is happening in Ukraine, despite the unapologetically pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine demonstrators who showed up on May 10.

Arturs Krisianis Karins, the American-born Latvian prime minister, is not worried about the pro-Putin faction among Latvia's Russian population. It is a "minority of a minority,” he said in a radio interview on May 19, a week after the Victory Park fracas. As proof, he cited a recent poll by the respected Latvian pollster SKDS, which showed that the number of Putin supporters had dropped from 20 per- cent to 13 percent since the war began. “That translates to about 5 percent of the population of our country," Karins pointed out, observing that even in most Western countries there is usually an equally small percentage of the population who are unhappy with the government. "We can live with that.”

Karins went on to enumerate his government's moves to fortify both the country's military defenses, in concert with its NATO allies, and its cultural defenses, by accelerating the ongoing effort to remove the Russian language from the educational system, "'so that all of our schools will be teaching the

state language.” Don't worry about the crazies who showed up at Victory Park on May 10, he said. And don't worry about Russia.

Yet rightly or wrongly, a lot of Latvians are worried about Russia, as well as the future of their country. One hears of older people, especially those with memories of the horrific Soviet deportations of the late 1940s, who packed their suitcases in February and March, just in case the Russians did come back. They are a minority. But there are many more Latvians from both sides of the ethnic divide who are worried about whether the still-fragile Latvian state will withstand the reverberations from the war in Ukraine.

The last week of May was an intense and eventful one, as the shadow of the war loomed larger. On May 26 Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the Latvian parliament from Kyiv. He thanked Latvia for

the profuse military and humanitarian aid it has extended his country, including accepting, housing, and schooling more than 30,000 Ukrainian refugees, a not inconsiderable number for a financially strapped nation of fewer than two million. He also explicitly tied Ukraine's fate to Latvia's. "Dear Latvian people!" he exhorted. 

Our parents hoped that the war would not hit our generation. That you and I would not be threatened by what previous generations had to endure. Oppression, repression, deportation… We have everything we need to eliminate these threats. And I am sure we'll do it. Together. And guided by our values. Paldies, Latvija! Glory to Ukraine!

Four days later, on May 30, the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia had its grand reopening. Established in 1993 to depict what had happened in Latvia between 1940 and 1991, including the crimes committed under the Nazi and Soviet regimes, with a heavy emphasis on the latter, as well as the difficult path to the restoration of independence in 1991, the museum is in a massive, boxlike building with a checkered history. Built in 1971 to celebrate the one-hundredth anniver- sary of Lenin's birth, it was first a museum for the Latvian Red Riflemen, the Latvian Soviet troops who fought in the Russian Civil War. Each of the Baltic states has a museum of occupation, and Latvia's was definitely the least impressive of them. I recall tour- ing it on my first visit to Riga in 2002 and being struck by its amateurish, agitprop character. The reopening of the museum, which was housed at the former US embassy during its long-delayed, controversial €10 million renovation, would have been a charged affair under normal circumstances. The war in Ukraine and the dispute over Victory Park made it even more so. Latvian president Egils Levits, a mild-mannered, bespectacled sixty-six-year-old jurist and lawyer who was a longtime judge on the European Court of Human Rights, has yet to grip the Latvian public's imagination like his formidable and still-beloved predeces- sor Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who served from 1999 to 2007 and helped usher Latvia into both the EU and NATO. But his remarks, delivered before a standing-room-only crowd in an emotion-laden voice, electrified the room. 

“Ladies and gentlemen!” Levits began.

Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine has evoked in our national memory the Soviet invasion of Latvia in 1940. The crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine remind us of the brutal murder of Latvian civilians during the [Soviet] occupation.

The president went on to extol the importance of the refurbished museum in "explaining the tragic knot in

Latvian statehood,” as he described the successive Nazi and Soviet occupations, the illegal mobilization of Latvians in occupation armies, and the all-but-forgotten resistance movement during the Soviet occupation, known as the Forest Brothers. 

Levits did not mention the Victory Park Memorial, but he strongly alluded to it, while dismissing both the Western interpretation of Latvia's liberation and the one that Putin and the Russian media have used to rationalize Russian aggression in Ukraine and, at least implicitly, to justify a possible future move against the Baltics.

“The European space of remembrance is still divided by different interpretations of World War II," declared Levits. In the West, the narrative of the Allied victory over Nazism as the only evil has dominated for years. Russia, on the other hand, especially under Putin, has based its identity on its victory in the so-called Great Patriotic War, glorifying its image as the liberator of the world. Neither of these interpretations corresponds to the Latvian experience. Latvia was not liberated by the West, but reoccupied by Soviet Russia in 1945.

After his speech, I toured the museum. The new exhibition, which takes up nearly a, thousand square feet is replete with dozens of fascinating, carefully edited videos and myriad creatively mounted photographs and accompanying texts. It is more under- stated than its predecessor, allowing the victims as well as the survivors of the two occupations to speak of the horrors they endured and witnessed. In the section about the Soviet Occupation, my eye was caught by a display illustrating how the Soviets tried to erase the memory of the first Latvian republic by defacing or demolishing monuments from that time. “Purging Memory; it is called. I asked Gints Apals, the head of the museum's public history department if that wasn’t what the Latvian government was now proposing to do with Victory Park and other memorials. He disagreed. "I do not think that the current developments around Soviet-era monuments could be compared to Soviet policies directly," he insisted.

The Soviet regime tried to erase the memories of independent Latvia in order to subjugate the people and build a new Russified communist society. Latvia is not trying to purge the memory of anyone. The fact is, many people in Latvia perceive the Soviet military monuments as a reminder that the Soviet or Russian terror might come back. To be sure, there is little evidence that any Latvians from either community- even the vociferous pro-Putin minority of Russians- have any interest in being part of Mother Russia again. Nor has Putin, his hands full with Ukraine, explicitly said that he has designs on the Baltics. Hackles were raised on June 9, however, when, in a bombastic talk about his predecessor Peter the Great, Putin hinted at such designs, praising Peter for “reclaiming,” as he disingenuously put it, the Swedish-ruled Estonian city of Narva in 1704, during the Great Northern War. How, I wondered, did the people of other Latvian cities, particularly ones in the eastern part of the country near Russia, perceive the Soviet-era military monuments in their towns? To find out, the weekend before the museum opening I traveled to Rezekne, a city of 27,000 twenty-three miles west of the Latvian-Russian border. Rezekne's population is almost evenly divided between ethnic Latvians and Russians - 47.5 percent to 41.5 percent. The hotel where I like to stay, the Kolonna, was built in 1939, during the waning days of the first republic. Designed in the Scandinavian style favored in the Baltics at the time, with large windows and a curved façade, it was intended in part to accommodate the Soviet officials and tourists who were expected to pass through Rezekne en route to the 1940 Olympic Games across the Gulf of Finland in Helsinki.

Those games were canceled after the Soviets invaded Finland in November 1939, and the three-month  Finno-Soviet Winter War, which the Ukraine war so eerily resembles, was followed by the first Soviet occupation of the Baltics. The Kolonna was almost completely destroyed in the heavy fighting between retreating German forces and advancing Soviet ones that raged in the area in the spring of 1944. After the war and the return of Soviet rule, the hotel was reconstructed and became popular with the Russian tourists who liked to summer in Rezekne and sun themselves along the shore of nearby Rezekne Lake. Before the Soviets departed, they also erected in the center of town the Monument to the Liberators of Rezekne, a hulking, approximately sixty-foot likeness of a Soviet soldier cradling a PPSh-41 submachine gun - standard issue for Stalin's troops. Unsurprisingly, the monument, which is also known as Alyosha, is high on the list of Soviet memorials that the Saeima would like to have removed. It also happens to be located within sight of the Kolonna. When I arrived, there were no police there, like the watchful ones now stationed around the clock at Victory Park, which has been blocked off. Nor were there many visitors. I did notice, though, that every morning there were more flowers. The impression I got from talking with members from both ethnic communities was that the monument was not as controversial as the Victory Park Memorial in Riga has become. Nevertheless, on June 7 the Rezekne City Council peremptorily decided to move it to the city cemetery on the outskirts of town, where some of the Soviet war dead are buried. 

No Friends to the Fir

From Sierra, May/June 1991

As Soviet acid rain falls on the forests of Lapland, nature-loving Finns find that glasnost alone isn't good enough.

The Soviet Union's problems in the Baltic region are not limited to burgeoning independence movements in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. While the end of the Cold War should have brought an easing of tensions between the USSR and neighboring Finland, a new obstacle to harmonious relations is emerging in the form of transboundary environmental issues - most prominently, poisonous air pollution wafting across the border from Soviet factories. At risk are Finland's beloved fir forests, which Finns view as a spiritual as well as an economic resource. 

Although they share a common, 700-mile-long border - Finland was a Russian duchy between 1809 and 1917 - there has traditionally been little love lost between these two countries. Three times this century the Finns and Soviets (or their proxies) have clashed with bloody results. The outcome of the most recent confrontation was the grudgingly symbiotic political relationship that has come to be known as “Finlandization”. 

Finland’s last armed conflict with the Soviet Union came during World War I when the Finns joined with Nazi Germany in a vain attempt to recover territory lost in the "Winter War” of 1939. When it was over, the victorious Soviets could have turned Finland into a communist satellite with the Allies’ blessing. Instead, the Finns were allowed to retain their western-style democracy and capitalistic economy, but the Soviets forced them to pay $300 million in war reparations and to join the Soviets in a defensive military alliance against NATO. Over the years the ties binding the two countries have gradually loosened, to the point where, in October 1989, on the occasion of his first visit to Helsinki, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev openly endorsed Finnish neutrality. 

Nearly as important to the Finns, however, was Gorbachev's pledge that he would take tough action to stop the noxious gases issuing from the Soviet mining and industrial complexes on the Kola Peninsula, pollution that falls as acid rain in Finland. The massive factories, most run by Soviet military industries, send 700 tons of corrosive sulfur-dioxide emissions across the Finno Soviet border each year - far more than is produced in all of Finland. Much of it falls on Finnish Lapland in the northern third of the country. Forests have been ravaged within a 300-square-mile radius of the factories, extending over the border into the Finnish province of Salla. Another 500 square miles of both Finnish and Soviet forestland have been severely affected, reports the Finnish Green Party, with "clear signs of damage" in an additional 50,000 square miles. In all, an estimated 30 percent of the firs in Finnish Lapland are in danger of dying. 

As the largest exporter of paper products in Europe, Finland is economically dependent on its vast forests. But the trees play an important psychic role as well for a nation whose population was still 90 percent rural only 40 years ago. Even today a great many city dwellers maintain lakeside summer cottages and cherish the natural beauty of the countryside. The result is environmental consciousness elevated to an almost mystical level of intensity. 

"The beauty of nature affected me almost as profoundly as a religious “born-again" experience,” claims Finnish Foreign Trade Minister Pertti Salolainen, describing childhood visits to his family's cottage in the woody archipelago that rings the Finnish coast. “The whole of nature unfolded in front of my eyes. I'm not a religious person, but you could describe me as an eco-pantheist.”

"Finnish Lapland has always evoked images of pristine purity in the minds of those who admire scenic beauty,” writes Pekka Haavisto, a Green Party member of the Finnish Parliament. "But it is threatened by a reality that we have been slow to wake up to: Just across the Soviet frontier, industrial plants on the Kola Peninsula spew three times as much sulfur into the air as does the whole of Finland." Haavisto's tacit acknowledgment that the Finns are not entirely without responsibility for their environmental dilemma is echoed by Jorma Lavrila, editor of the widely read magazine Suomen Luonto (“Finnish Nature"), who admits, "We create one-third of our own pollution problems. “But," he adds, "'two-thirds come from the Soviet Union.” 

While Finns applauded President Gorbachev's promise to address the acid-rain problem, they are now coming to doubt the value of his word. Finland's delicate position vis-à-vis its powerful neighbor has traditionally made Finnish officials reluctant to air their differences with the Soviet Union in public. Nevertheless, Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri reacted angrily last spring when he paid a visit to the disputed Soviet industrial complexes and saw the chimneys belching away as vigorously as before Gorbachev’s promise. 

"Mr. Gorbachev received a rapturous welcome when he visited Finland last year, considering that this is a country with a reputation for gloom," grumped a high-ranking Finnish minister quoted in the London-based newspaper The European. “He gained great credit for his speech praising Finland's neutrality and was liked for his warm manner. Every Finn wishes him well. But if there is one issue that clouds the new Finno-Soviet relationship, it is ecology.”

The problem of Soviet slopover extends beyond the high-profile issue of acid rain: A huge dam under construction near Leningrad is resulting in a large amount of untreated sewage from the city being discharged into the Gulf of Finland. Though the USSR is a signatory to the 1974 Helsinki Marine Environment Commission- "a lot has been done to protect the Baltic on paper,” says Green legislator Haavisto - there is no indication that there will be any delay in the construction of the Leningrad dam.

 In the case of acid rain, the sticking point is not so much Soviet will as Soviet pride. The Finnish government offered to pay the Soviets to employ technology for cutting sulfur dioxide emissions already developed by the Finnish state copper company, Outukemenu. But the Soviets balked, preferring to employ an experimental process of their own, which they said would do the job - though not for five to seven years. Last September they finally relented, accepting a $1-billion loan from Finland, Sweden, and Norway (all of whose forests are affected by the Soviet Union's acid rain) to help pay for the installation of the Finnish anti-pollution equipment. 

"One of the many new features that glasnost has brought to Soviet life is a lively environmental debate,” says Haavisto. "New groups of activists have sprung up, and Greenpeace now has an office in Moscow. But the task facing environmentalists in the Soviet Union is gargantuan. It isn't really clear whether the country as a whole really cares about the environment or the problems that their environmental recklessness is causing us.”

Are the Soviets capable of being good environmental neighbors? As the European country with the longest air, land, and water boundary with the USSR, Finland is a good place to look for an answer to that question. And Finland is having its doubts.

Enrollment Surge in Norway’s Colleges Brings Political Consensus for More Government Aid; Drive to Close Small Institutions Gains

From The Chronicles of Higher Education, January 1992

Overcrowding at the University of Oslo is so severe that officials may "suspend"' all final examinations this year because there are not enough rooms in which to administer them.

The conditions at Oslo are symptomatic of the situation throughout Norway's higher-education system, which over the past four years has experienced close to a 50-percent increase in full-time enrollment- from 95.000 in 1988 to more than 140,000 today. Each of the country's four main public universities--Bergen, Oslo, Tromso, and Trondheim--report it has too many students and not enough space. The universities' efforts to cope have led to a broad-based consensus among political leaders in Europe's northernmost country that swift and substantial increases in support for higher education are essential. 

A Record Increase in Funds 

Last month, following the recommendation of the minority Social Democrat government, the Storting-~-Norway's parliament agreed to a record 11-per-cent increase in funds for higher education and research, to about $1.42-billion, for the coming year.

At the same time, government officials are continuing their campaign to try to reduce drastically the number of small, regional colleges scattered across the country.

Originally designed as an alternative to the university system, the network of 104 regional colleges offers programs of study that lead to the equivalent here of a bachelor's degree.

About 55,000 of Norway's students are enrolled in the regional colleges, and about 10,000 attend private colleges and institutes. The rest-some 75.000-are enrolled at the four universities.

Current government plans, which the Storting has reluctantly endorsed, call for rolling back the number of regional Colleges which remain highly popular—to roughly 30 so that more resources can be focused on the universities.

"The system is under unprecedented pressure, says Jan Toska, executive officer in the university section at Norway’s Ministry of Education, Research, and Church Affairs. Mr. Toska, one of those responsible for preparing the new higher-education budget and pushing it through the parliament, says that about $ 20 million will go for the construction of new facilities at the teeming universities, particularly those at Bergen and Oslo.

Student leaders across the country say the amount to be spent on new facilities is not nearly enough.

"Ever since 1945 the government has been urging everyone to get a higher education, but then when it comes time to pay the bill, there isn't enough money, says Anne Lagoen, the head of the Oslo students' union. "We're fed up.”

No Provision for Library

Ms. Lagoen is particularly distressed that the new budget contains no provision for what she considers the most pressing need of the flagship Oslo campus: a new, conveniently located library. Overcrowding and no place to grow forced the university to relocate its campus from the city center to the outskirts of the capital, with only the law school and the main library remaining downtown. Hence students must shuttle between the library on the old campus and classes on the new campus, in a district called Blinder. Oslo students say the situation is not acceptable.

Mr. Toska of the education ministry promises that the university will get a new library, probably within the next two years. "We are working on it now," he says. He also cautions that planning has to precede expansion. "We can't just throw money at higher education--we have to get our signals clear first," he says.

Student leaders say money alone won’t correct the underlying problem, which they identify as the government’s ”skewed and confused” notions about support for higher education.

"University students in Norway are treated like second-class citizens,” says Signe Knappskog, vice-president of Norsk Student union, which represents the country's university students. “Society doesn't sufficiently value what we do. If it did, it wouldn't be shoving us into grossly overcrowded schools.”

Says Briten Stene, head of the students’ union at Bergen: “It's really a very depressing situation."

Ms. Stene says that classes on the Bergen campus--which was built for 6,000 students but currently enrolls 15,000-are so crowded that sunde fire marshals have suspended sessions in mid-lecture on several occasions because attendance exceeded the rooms' legal capacity. 

An Embarrassment 

Ms. Stene and other student leaders as well as many frustrated academics and administrators - see the overcrowding as clear proof of the government's inability to manage and meet the needs of its higher-education system.

At the very least, the overcrowding is an embarrassment to the government. In its 1990 report, "Education in Norway," the education ministry confidently declared: "The current objective of government policy is a capacity of 105,000 full-time students by the mid-90s." That projection was undone when 45,000 new students streamed into the system over the past three semesters.

"The strong and unexpected growth in the number of university applicants has made it clear that the knowledge base for steering higher education is too weak stated a recent white paper prepared for the government by the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities, a quasi-public group.

Per Olaf Aamodt, a researcher at the council, is trying to figure out where all the new students came from. According to Mr. Aamodt, the student-population explosion is probably the result of two forces: increased unemployment among young people and the government's own promotion of higher education as something that is good for all Norwegians.

Bitter and Discontented

Mr. Aamodt says the current unemployment rate - 5 percent, very high by Norwegian standards—has probably encouraged more 19-year-olds to go directly into the higher-education system instead of taking time out to pursue other interests, as had been the norm.

As for the government's push for higher education for all, "Education in Norway” stated it this way: "It is the view of the government that higher education should be regarded as contributing to the economic, social, and political life of all regions in Norway.”

Faced with such rhetoric, students can't be blamed for being bitter and discontented, says Mr. Aamodt. He sees as "'especially cynical” the government's implicit encouragement of higher education as a way to help solve Norway’s unemployment problem by continuing to offer high-interest, student-loan packages to all qualified seekers. "In a sense, the students are being asked to pay for the cost of their unemployment by mortgaging their futures," says Mr. Aamodt. "It's a cheap trick.”

"We are in danger of losing a generation," he adds.

Norwegian student leaders see the financial-aid situation as further proof of their oppressed and neglected status. “We find it unacceptable that students are forced to carry such a large burden of debt,” says Bjorn Tore Sund, vice-president for financial issues of the national students union.

Like many student leaders in neighboring Sweden, Mr. Sund supports the idea of paying students a salary to pursue a degree. "That would truly underline the value our society places on our work,” he says. Mr. Sund did not say how he expected Europe’s most sparsely populated nation, which is only now starting to climb out of a deep recession, to pay for such a program.

Mr. Sund and his fellow officer, Ms. Knappskog, are particularly anxious to have the government do something about the growing number of students who are parents. According to unofficial estimates here, one of every five students in the higher-education system is supporting at least one child. 

Tempered Sympathy 

The student grievances get tempered sympathy from Per Nyborg, the general secretary of Norway’s University Council, a quasi-public body that coordinates relations among the universities and between them and the state.

"In the 1970s, when the interest rate on loans was lower than inflation, it wasn’t so hard for students to pay back, he says. "Now, many students don't pay off their loans for 20 or 30 years, and some don't pay them off at all.”

A former official in the education ministry, Mr. Nyborg says that higher education did not receive sufficient economic or political support when he was in the government. That, he says, is one of the reasons why he is now working on behalf of the universities.

"We have to understand that the wealth we have acquired from our North Sea oil should be spent on building the system back up, he says in an interview in his office on the University of Bergen campus.

"We do have to spend more money, much more money on higher education, but that in itself will require a drastic change in attitude,” says Mr. Nyborg.

“Higher education is not yet an intrinsic enough part of our culture.”