Jusspust – Hvorfor trenger vi en kampanje?

Injuria.no • 20. februar 2017

Skrevet av Ida Victoria Rullestad

Høsten 2016 fikk Dragefjellet besøk av NRKs program Innafor. I sin utforming av programmet oppsøkte journalistene flere typisk prestisjetunge linjer for å finne ut hvordan miljøet og dynamikken er på nettopp slike steder. De ville undersøke vårt fakultet og vår hverdag.

NRK traff godt med timingen, for akkurat i denne perioden var JSU aktive med den mye roste kampanjen Jusspust, som skulle dempe det negative karakterfokuset som tidvis klinker til i korridorene på Dragefjellet. Hovedbudskapet i kampanjen er at jusstudenter må roe ned og trekke pusten. I de mange videosnuttene som ble publisert går jurister, advokater og professorer ut med følgende beskjed: Du får jobb selv om du ikke har toppkarakterer, så slapp av, og nyt studietiden.

Et deilig budskap.

Men hvorfor er slike kampanjer nødvendig her på jussen, og hvorfor ser vi ikke tilsvarende på andre fakulteter?

Jeg har en teori, jeg vet ikke om den stemmer, og jeg håper jeg tar feil. Jeg tror at kjernen i problemet er at litt for mange dyktige og gode studenter på Dragefjellet ikke tror på noe før det blir fortalt dem. Egne tanker og ideer har ikke nødvendigvis så stor verdi. Resultatet blir en gjeng engstelige mennesker som blindt følger flokken. Mange studenter er, etter mitt syn, usunt opptatte av hva som blir sagt, hvem som sa det og hvor mye vekt man skal gi det, alt etter personens «status» (var vedkommende «bare» en student, eller var det selveste kurslederen?). Auditorium 1 er til tider som et vepsebol, alle mann til tastaturet, for gud forby at man skulle gå glipp av et eneste ord. Jeg har hørt kursledere nærmest be forsamlingen om å slutte og skrive og heller lytte til de velvalgte avsluttende ordene de vil at vi skal få med oss. Så programmerte er vi altså til å helt ukritisk ta til oss alt som blir sagt, uten filter.

Jusspust treffer derfor svært godt som kampanje, nettopp på grunn av hvordan den er utformet. Dyktige jurister forteller oss at vi må roe ned, at det kommer til å gå bra uansett. Hvorfor kan vi bare tro på dette glade budskap når det blir fortalt til oss av autoriteter, tredd nedover hodet på oss som en sekk? Hvorfor kan vi ikke tenke disse tankene selv? Dersom vi studenter bare innretter oss etter det som blir fortalt og formidlet, heller enn å stoppe opp for å tenke selv og lytte til stemmen innenfra, lurer jeg på hvor lidenskapen og kjærligheten til faget skal oppstå fra.

Vi som studerer juss skal inn i respekterte stillinger, vi skal få makt og penger mellom hendene. Da holder det ikke å blindt la seg lede av det flokken gjør, og det andre forteller. Du skal foreta verdivurderinger en gang, avveie interesser mot hverandre, ta avgjørelser som preger liv. Da må du ha en moralsk kjerne. Du skal skinne gjennom som menneske i jobben du gjør som jurist. Verden brenner, og mer enn noen gang trengs de riktige hodene og hjertene på de rette stedene for å ta de vanskelige beslutningene. Så skru på hodet ditt, skru på hjertet. Du er ingen maskin – og det er din største styrke. Sitter du passiv og skriver ned det alle sier uten å tenke selv, kopierer kunnskap i blinde, og aldri tør noe annet i frykt for å stryke, da er det ingenting som skiller deg og en skrivemaskin.

Ikke vær en skrivemaskin. Vær en god og raus versjon av deg selv. Og aldri glem at det er vi som skaper miljøet på Dragefjellet, meg og deg, og ingen kampanje er viktigere enn den innsatsen vi studenter legger ned for å lage en god hverdag for hverandre. Dersom vi skal ta ned det trykket som til tider ligger i gangene på fakultetet, må vi først anerkjenne at alle har et ansvar for at de andre rundt oss skal ha det bra. Så hils og smil til de rundt deg. Dragefjellet er på det jevne et godt sted å være for de aller fleste. Men man skal ikke se bort fra at det kan oppstå et spesielt trykk her ute, som vi alle må prøve å utjevne med væremåten vår.

Og her kommer det jeg bryr meg mest om: Vi trenger ingen kampanje hvis vi bare møter hverandre med raushet og respekt. Karakterfokuset vil jevnes med jorden viss vi alle behandler hverandre godt. Opp fra asken vil noe nytt reise seg: Ny oksygen, frisk luft å puste fritt i. Et studiemiljø der fokuset er å lære, jobbe hardt og å ha det godt. Ikke fordi noen har sagt at det er riktig, men fordi det er det du ønsker selv.

Av Siggen og Begeret 1. mai 2026
Akkurat som med Snusboks-leken skal du sende en gjenstand (helst Norges Lover) til den påstanden resonerer best med. Drikk hver gang du får den, eller når rimet slapper for hardt. Splash er selvfølgelig oblig!
Av By Sabrina Eriksen-Zapata, Josefine Gløersen and Hilda Sønderland Lundanes - ELSA Bergen, Academic Activities Research Group (2025-2026) 23. april 2026
Last year’s Rafto Prize was awarded to Emergency Response Rooms of Sudan (ERRs) for their humanitarian work in the Sudanese civil war. As conflict continues to devastate the country and displace millions, ERR has played a vital role as a local humanitarian organisation. The organisation is community-driven and focuses on empowering the local community, which was one of the reasons why they were awarded the Rafto Prize1. The recognition of ERR raises questions on how local humanitarian organisations compare to international organisations in terms of efficiency, capacity and long-term sustainability. Efficiency and Structure International organisations will, to a larger degree, use international staff. However, in some cases they will employ and use staff from the country in crisis, in which they will be able to deploy their local understanding in the situation2. In the cases where international organisations do not use local staff to a great extent, there are undoubtedly several benefits of using local aid organisations instead. When comparing the efficiency and structure of humanitarian organisations, clear differences appear between local and international actors. Local actors have more cultural and contextual knowledge which allows them to use other approaches than international organisations. The Building Resilient Communities in Somalia (BRCiS) consortium included Somali local expertise, and thus was able to tailor the aid based on what the affected people actually needed.3 While the methods of the local actors are tailored to the specific context, international organisations often use standardised operating procedures. These procedures often prove efficient at the time of crises but can also provide a risk for unintended harm arising from the lack of understanding of local customs. International and local humanitarian aid organisations are also different in the way they are structured. The local organisations often have a vertical structure which might make it easier for them to adapt to sudden changes compared to organisations with hierarchical structures which are less flexible. Since local actors are already present in the affected area, they are able to respond quickly to sudden escalations in a current crisis. For example, ERR was based on community-led activities existing prior to the Sudanese war, which allowed them to establish immediately after the outbreak of the war.4 Because they were not dependent on foreign staff, they were able to mobilize quickly by using resources from local networks. By contrast, international organisations will to a large degree depend on international staff who have to be transported to the conflict-affected area. During the typhoon in the Philippines in 2013, the local NGOs had a more efficient first response because they were already present in the area.5 For international organisations, decisions have to pass through more levels of approval before international staff can be deployed, making it harder to be present when the crisis first emerges. International organisations may also struggle to enter the conflict-affected area because of restrictions and safety concerns while local actors have a more immediate access. Funding and legitimacy The local and international aid organizations also differ when it comes to accessing donors and funding, and areas where help is needed. The local organizations may not be well known outside of their area. This could impact their funding, as those who are willing to donate may not know of their work, or know who to trust. From the donors' point of view, it is difficult to trust that their money is going to the right causes when they have limited knowledge of the area and the different local organizations. This makes it more likely that they will choose to donate to the international organizations they know and trust. The access to donors is a great advantage for the international organizations. On the other hand, some studies suggest that local organizations might use their funding more efficiently. In 2024, The Share Trust and Refugees International in cooperation with Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) published a study which showed that the local intermediaries were 15.5% more cost-efficient than the international ones in Ukraine. The study found that the UNOCHA Country Based Pooled Fund saved about $ 5.5 million in just one year.6 While the funding showed to be more efficient when going to the local actors in Ukraine this may not necessarily be the case elsewhere. In other areas the local actors will have widely different degrees of organization, and it will be difficult to predict how effective the funding will be. The funding of the organizations also shape the access they have to areas where aid is needed. This is clear when you look at the difference between MSF Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. MSF is based on private donations as a way to protect their independence. 7 This funding strategy also allows them to not be associated with a country’s policy, which ensures their access to multiple areas other organizations do not have access to. While they gain access by staying independent with their funding, MSF is vocal about their experiences in the areas they work. This can both be a hindrance and a benefit, depending on whether the people in power wish to be in the spotlight or not. The Red Cross on the other hand relies heavily on financial contributions from states. However, their long-term humanitarian commitment to the principle of neutrality has provided the Red Cross access to conflict areas where other international humanitarian organisations were denied access due to them publicly reporting war crimes and violations they witnessed. For instance, MSF were denied access to Darfur for publicly reporting the rape of over 500 women by soldiers, whilst the Red Cross were able to remain due to their principle of remaining silent and not reporting violations that they witnessed.8 By funding the local actors, one can circumvent the problem altogether. The local actors will have access to the area no matter where they get their funding from or what they publish about the crisis since they are already there. All in all, the funding of local actors is shown to be positive. However, at the same time they lack the legitimacy and the resources that the international aid organizations have. Empowering the affected people Scholars have also pointed out how local organisations can create a sense of ownership and empowerment in a time of crisis and war. Including the local population in humanitarian aid can help the affected people of the crisis feel a sense of control in a time of despair and hopelessness. Using local staff and collecting them together to work on infrastructural projects, or on the distribution of water, food and medicine can also create a sense of solidarity and cohesion which is incredibly important in times of war. Scholars have even suggested that creating such a space where the affected population collaborate together on their common humanity can even facilitate the discussion of peace and negotiation further down the road.9 Strengthening local organisations will also provide a more sustainable dynamic in later crises as the people can transfer knowledge, dynamics and infrastructure they have built. For instance, the BRIGHTLY consortium, combined the strengths of international aid organisations with national Yemeni organisations to empower and strengthen the local community. It put the decision-making processes in the hands of the local community which paved the way for mentoring and training.10 Not only is this empowering on a psychological level, but it is also extremely sustainable in the long-term. Therefore, this article does not intend to diminish the importance of international aid organisations. On the contrary, international aid organisations have been vital in securing life for centuries. However, as this article mentions, and seen through ERR’s hard work in Sudan, strengthening local organisations can provide aid relief in a sustainable and efficient manner, in addition to empowering the affected population in a time of crisis.