To guide the public, students and staff interested in KTH’s contemporary dealings with discrimination cases, we select a case that has many of the components of the cases we saw and described earlier https://anti-discrimination.kth.support/news/how and https://anti-discrimination.kth.support/news/why

A Mind on Trial: The Anatomy of Institutional Retaliation

How a Black student’s complaints of discrimination at Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology led to a multi-year institutional campaign to expel him on grounds of insanity—a campaign that was ultimately rejected by a Swedish court, raising profound questions about power, race, and the right to speak out.

Part 1: The Verdict and the Accusation

In a pivotal ruling on January 16, 2025, the Stockholm Administrative Court (Förvaltningsrättens dom, mål nr 21699-24) delivered a verdict that struck at the heart of a years-long battle between a single doctoral student and one of Europe’s most prestigious technical universities. The court invalidated the Royal Institute of Technology's (KTH) attempt to expel the student, stating unequivocally that the university’s central claim—that the student suffered from a “psykisk störning” (mental disorder)—lacked any factual basis in the evidence presented. The court found: “Neither the doctor’s report nor the journal entries contain the conclusion, or suspicion, that [the student] suffers from a mental disorder.”

The ruling was a decisive moment, exposing KTH's narrative as being without evidence. Yet, because KTH chose to appeal, the case is now being processed by the Administrative Court of Appeal (Kammarrätten i Stockholm, mål nr 628-25). The final outcome will be insightful about what legal principles apply when a student’s right to speak out clashes with an institution’s power.

This is the story of that conflict, reconstructed from a meticulous archive of official documents, court filings, and internal university correspondence. It is a case study in the anatomy of institutional power and a modern-day playbook for how a state authority can attempt to silence a whistleblower: first, ignore them; then, isolate them; and finally, declare them insane.

Part 2: The Playbook of Retaliation

The conflict began, as it often does, with a protected act. In late 2021, the student, a Black man, formally reported experiences of discrimination to university officials, including the Head of his School, Sonja Berlijn. What followed was not an investigation into his claims, but an escalating series of administrative actions directed against him.

Step 1: The Ultimatum (December 2021)

According to the case timeline, the retaliation began in earnest on December 16, 2021. During a meeting, the student alleges he was given a stark ultimatum by his Head of School. He was told: “We see no way forward with you. We see what you did (discrimination cases and related errands) as serious. We will not renew your employment because we don’t trust you.” The offer was clear: accept a payout to terminate his studies quietly, or his career at KTH would be over.

Step 2: Digital Exile and Isolation (March 2022)

When the student refused to be silenced, the institution responded with a swift and devastating measure. On March 30, 2022, in a decision signed by then-Rector Sigbritt Karlsson (VP-2022-0278), the student’s KTH account was shut down. The official justification was a violation of IT policy related to an auto-reply email he had set up. The consequence was total academic isolation. He was cut off from his research, his correspondence, and the digital infrastructure essential to his work.

This action would later become a cornerstone of KTH’s argument against him. His persistent attempts to communicate and seek redress after being digitally exiled were reframed as evidence of a disturbed and vexatious personality. The pattern was established: first, punish the act of speaking out; then, pathologize the response to that punishment.

Step 3: Undermining Academic Standing (2021-2023)

The campaign moved to the core of his academic life. KTH unilaterally altered his supervision structure in violation of standard procedure (decision J-2021-3065) and later appointed a new supervisor whom the student had explicitly named in his discrimination complaints, creating a severe conflict of interest. When he appealed, he alleges that KTH misled the Higher Education Appeals Board (ÖNH) by falsely claiming he had consented to the change.

His persistence was not without validation. After a lengthy investigation, the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) issued a formal criticism against KTH in November 2023 (dnr 31-00567-22), stating that the university "cannot escape criticism for its handling of the case." This external rebuke proved his grievances were not delusions; they were rooted in documented procedural failures.

Step 4: Pathologizing Dissent and the Final Attack (2024)

By early 2024, having failed to remove the student through administrative pressure, KTH initiated the final phase of the playbook. The timing was methodical and revealing.

On January 29, 2024, two key decisions were made. First, KTH formally dismissed the student’s own complaint about reprisals without a full investigation (VPU-2024-0004). On the exact same day, current Rector Anders Söderholm signed the decision to formally withdraw all of the student’s remaining educational resources (V-2023-0339).

Less than a month later, on February 27, 2024, KTH filed its formal request to have the student expelled. The justification it provided to the Higher Education Disciplinary Board was the climax of its narrative: the university claimed the student suffers from "vanföreställningar om att vara utsatt för diskriminering" (delusions about being subjected to discrimination).

The link was now undeniable and official. The student’s protected legal right to file a discrimination complaint was being explicitly presented as the primary symptom of a mental disorder. The racial dimension of the conflict was laid bare: a Black student’s perception of discrimination was deemed a delusion, a sickness to be purged from the institution.

Part 3: The Verdict on a System

The Administrative Court’s ruling against KTH was not just a decision in one case; it was an indictment of a process. The court was faced with two profoundly different realities: KTH’s narrative of a disturbed individual, and the documented facts of the case which showed a retaliatory pattern. The court chose the version supported by evidence.

However, the case raises questions that extend far beyond the courtroom walls. It serves as a powerful statement about the balance of power between the individual and the state in Sweden. It tests the principle that the right to report misconduct is a protected act, not a symptom of a disorder. This meticulously compiled archive of one student's struggle is a testament to what is at stake when our institutions choose to put a mind on trial rather than examine their own conduct.

Part 4: A Playbook for Integrity – Wisdom for the Future

This ordeal is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a systemic vulnerability. From this struggle comes not just a cautionary tale, but a framework for reflection and a guide for principled action.

Open Questions for the Academic Community:

• What is the true purpose of a university: to provide students with a high-quality education in a good nurturing environment and pursue truth, or to protect some of its staff's wrongdoings at all costs, even if that meant lying on public records, spreading false accusations, and paying extra from tax money to lawyers and agencies just to shut down a black student?

• When a grievance is reported, is our first duty to act to resolve the problem wisely and objectively, or to escalate it and try to bury the “problem” by committing more illegal acts?

Wisdom from an Asymmetric Conflict:

1. Your Actions or Inactions Define You: Your actions to uphold morality, or your inaction in the face of injustice, are what truly define your character.

2. Transform Trauma into Knowledge: An ordeal like this provides a bitter but powerful education in the mechanics of power. Study the playbook used against you. This knowledge is a form of power that can never be taken from you.

3. The Ultimate Power is to Define Your Own Future: An institution can consume your present, but it cannot own your future unless you let it. The most powerful act of defiance is to build a successful life, thereby rendering its unjust actions a footnote in your story, rather than its defining chapter.

A Counter-Playbook for Students and Staff:

If some superior actors within an institution have a playbook for silencing dissent, then individuals need one for upholding integrity and standing up for oneself. Because going against the law makes us not only criminals but makes it worse than a law of the jungle—as jungles do not have laws to uphold or tax to pay.

• For Students:

  • Become the Archivist: From day one, document everything. Your archive is your shield.

  • Know Their Rules Better Than They Do: An institution that breaks its own rules is vulnerable. Use their framework to demand due process.

  • Build Your Council: You cannot fight alone. Confide in a trusted circle.

  • Practice Strategic Disengagement: Know your "stop-loss" point. Choosing to pivot your energy to your own future is not surrender; it is a strategic victory.

• For Principled Staff and Administrators:

  • Document Your Directives: If asked to take an action you believe is unethical, request it in writing. A paper trail creates accountability.

  • Understand Your Dual Loyalty: To self-preserve, you have to understand that your loyalty to your employer and superiors who decide your salary and promotions should not be confused with the need for self-preservation to not act illegally and commit crimes on behalf of your superiors and risk being a criminal in the process. Recognize when these two interests diverge.

  • Be a Witness, Not an Accomplice: Silence in the face of injustice is complicity. Refusing to participate or ensuring proper procedure is followed are powerful acts of integrity.

This case is a reminder that the character of an institution is not defined by its mission statement, but by how it treats the most vulnerable when they dare to speak up. The choice to uphold our shared values is made every day, in every administrative decision, and in every act of individual conscience.