According to Henrik Dahl, speaking in the Danish parliament on 28 May, "As politicians, we cannot trust the ordinary Danish Middle East researcher... What they have to say about Islam or about the Israel-Palestine conflict is so absurdly one-sided and biased that no sensible person can base his or her own stance or actions on it." After the debate, which also discussed fields such as research into gender and racism, parliament passed a resolution that "Parliament has the expectation that the universities' management will continuously ensure that the self-regulation of scholarly practice works. This means that [ideological] uniformity does not develop, that politics is not disguised as scholarship, and that it is not possible to systematically avoid justified scholarly critique."

Does Danish Middle East research and research into Islam really suffer from one-sidedness, bias, ideological uniformity, politics disguised as scholarship, and the avoidance of justified critique? If not, why do so many in parliament think it does, and what can and should be done about this?

To suggest answers to these questions, we will start with sort presentations:

• Mark Sedgwick (Arab and Islamic Studies) on the international and Danish political background
• Lene Kühle (Study of Religion) on Danish research into Islam
• Morten Valbjørn (Political Science) on Danish research into the Israel-Palestine conflict
• Christian Suhr (Anthropology) on Danish research into migration and race

Followed by a short break and a general discussion.

All are welcome on https://aarhusuniversity.zoom.us/j/63436835546