Ukraine’s intelligentsia is outraged by the initiatives of the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Ministry for Family, Youth and Sports, laid down in the draft “Concept of Language Education in Ukraine.” Ivan Vakarchuk, rector of the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, along with his colleagues, deputy rectors, deans of faculties, and numerous other experts in the sphere of Ukrainian language policy, contend that this bill is unacceptable because it runs counter to the current law on the languages and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), whose Preamble reads that “the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them…” Lviv University’s intellectuals believe that the bill is “an attempt to reinstall the [Russian] imperial language policy, precisely what the Bolsheviks enforced in Ukraine.” University scholars submitted their critical remarks on, and amendments to, the bill, noting that the existing bill, along with the one on languages in Ukraine (No. 1015-3), will not settle the language problem in Ukraine but rather increase social tensions.
“Recently published, this document actually allows the Russian language to enjoy unheard of privileges in the sphere of education, tangibly discouraging people to master the Ukrainian language, regardless of their ethnic origin,” reads a message carried by http://education.unian.net. It was signed, among others, by Natalka Bilotserkivets, Teodozia Zarivna, Mykola Riabchuk, Liudmyla Taran, Iren Rozdobudko, Oleksandr Ilchenko, Anatatolii Dnistrovy, Irena Karpa, and Larysa Denysenko.
Asserting an official language in any postcolonial country takes time and has to allow for local peculiarities. Here one should learn from the experiences of other countries. There is one aspect to the matter that has to be considered above all: the will of the people. This will can be implemented by the election of a patriotic government. In this context, one is reminded of the Jews, Italians, Balts, Czechs, and Poles. True, there are numerous examples in history that point to this factor being ignored when building a state, for various reasons, take Ireland or Belarus. There the native tongue was never the decisive factor in uniting the nation or building a nation-state. Ireland gained independence in 1921. Belarus did so in 1991. Both the Irish and Belarusian languages are used on a limited, local level. Whereas the Ukrainian language has simply to be supported in the west of Ukraine, in this country’s south and east it has to be promoted. Over the past 20 years of Ukrainian independence, a number of effective measures have been taken by the government in the language and culture spheres, but this isn’t enough! Proof of this is that the Ukrainian language, despite its official status, has failed to become a unifying factor in the state-building process.
Encouraging people to learn their mother tongue appears to be one of the most important state-building factors. Considerable progress has been made here. Looking at the numbers, in period from 1991 to 2006, the share of pre-school educational establishments teaching Ukrainian increased from 49.8 to 84.6 percent, while in high schools this went from 51 to 84 percent between 1995 and 2006. Over the past 19 years, Ukraine’s pre-school institutions, grade schools, and institutions of higher learning produced individuals who can speak fluent Ukrainian, even if some prefer Russian. Among these young people are true Ukrainian-speaking patriots.
The process of denationalizing Ukrainians has stopped in today’s independent Ukraine, albeit with regional disparities. Despite the positive changes in the language education sphere, the use of Ukrainian remains to be adequately enforced. Ukrainian, as the official language, must remain uppermost on the official education agenda. The decisions made by the previous pro-Ukrainian government appeared to establish Ukrainian as the only official language in the sphere of government-run education. The introduction of external independent testing, with obligatory Ukrainian tests, and tests involving other disciplines, all using Ukrainian, was received with understanding in Ukraine [it generated a mixed response, notably from some institutions that felt it would take away their independence and would be inadequate as a means of eliminating corruption. – Ed.]. Eventually, this would make all young people master Ukrainian.
In fact, this process caused concern in the Kremlin, as Ukraine was seen as gradually leaving the “single Russian space.” Not coincidentally, the Kremlin has lately been making titanic efforts to bring Ukraine back. The current Ukrainian government is either helping this process or, at least, doing little to prevent it. The fact remains that those currently in power support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP). There are plenty of UOC MP videos being played on Ukraine’s television and radio channels; there are attempts to cancel Ukrainian subtitles in Russian movies; there is the obvious attempt to disrupt the work of the Institute of National Memory by appointing a communist as its director, and slating the institute for eventual liquidation; there is the official denial of the 1932-33 Holodomor as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people; the pantheon of Ukrainian national heroes is being revised; Ukrainian grade-school history textbooks are being censored, and so on. The current Russian-minded government of Ukraine tends to the interests of Ukraine’s ethnic Russian communities, with a focus on education. Within less than a year, steps have been taken to advance Russian and thwart the Ukrainian language, as well as Ukrainian culture and history.
Nowadays university entrants can choose between Ukrainian and Russian when taking their independent external tests. Students from other countries can choose Russian as the language of instruction in Ukraine (previously, it was only Ukrainian). There is no longer a necessary Ukrainian language exam when applying for a Ukrainian university. There is a trend of singling out Russian literature from those of other peoples, making it a separate discipline. There is an attempt to offer parents the choice of language of instruction, even at a pre-school level.
The language bill is very important (it can be found at http://www.mon. gov.ua/). We need it to determine Ukraine’s further strategy in this direction. Some of its clauses appear well balanced and topical. There are parts that determine the language of instruction in Ukraine, to become legally effective in the near future. Definitely, there should be more to the underpinning principles proposed by the bureaucrats who wrote the Concept (e.g., “world globalization and information process; increasing social demand for thinking, active, creative individuals, and the decisive role the language plays in their formation [the latter statement lacks basic logic. — Authors]; the need to revise the objective, content, and structure of language study, considering the transfer to 11-year school instruction and the specialization of the higher link.”)
They [i.e., these principles — Ed.] are important, but the first and foremost principles in the language study concept, in a country where the titular nation makes up the absolute majority, but where its language hasn’t become predominant due to constant persecution and restrictions during the period of statelessness, should be as follows: “consolidation and unity of the Ukrainian citizens, based on a deep-reaching and substantial command of the official Ukrainian language, to secure all spheres of interethnic communications.”
The Ministry’s Concept proposes a consistent definition of the notions of “native language,” “official language,” and “foreign language.” In other words, by formally acknowledging Ukrainian as the official language, the authors of the Concept uphold the idea of continuity of education being instructed in the “native language,” giving the preference to Russian, stated as follows:
“There is a continuous system of language education in Ukraine, supported by a balanced language policy of the State, aimed at the mastering of the native language on the part of the carrier thereof; mastering of the official Ukrainian language, on the part of all citizens (regardless of their ethnic origin, religious affiliation or public/production field of endeavor; mastering of foreign languages and fostering lingual tolerance…). For considerable numbers of citizens of Ukraine, Russian is their mother tongue. This is a language of interethnic communication, one of the widespread languages of international communication, which is closely related to Ukrainian… The free choice of the language of instruction is an important characteristic of a democratic society and concept of language education in Ukraine… University education offers an opportunity to polish one’s command of languages, above all that of the official, native, and foreign languages…”
In fact, these provisos will reduce to nil all the efforts of the Ukrainian State in asserting Ukrainian as the official language. Fourteen to fifteen years from now our children will have Ukrainian as the language of instruction at pre-school establishments, grade schools, and universities, in four or five oblasts of Ukraine, at the most, whereas in the south and east of this country there will be no free choice of the language of instruction, no continuous language policy backed by the State, simply because there will be educational establishments with Ukrainian as the language of instruction. In view of everything stated above, there is heavy doubt about the emergence of Greek schools in Donetsk oblast, or Bulgarian schools in Odesa oblast, or Crimean Tatar ones in the Crimea, and so on. Needless to say, all universities will have Russian as the language of instruction. Try to imagine a situation in which all Crimean Tatars, Bulgarians, Gagauz, Poles or other ethnic groups start demanding their right to receive an education (ranging from daycare center to school to university) in their “native language,” as per the Ministry’s Concept… Proceeding from this Concept, the State will have to provide for a course in stereometry in Greek at the Mariupil University, or one in pathopsychology in Zhytomyr’s, and so on. It would be interesting to see how this concept of “continuous” — daycare-center-school-college/university — study of the “native language” would work in Russia with its ethnic groups numbering millions, or in the Kuban region with its several million ethnic Ukrainians. Understandably, the Concept’s authors tried to cope with the problem of all those ethnic Greeks, Bulgars, and Crimean Tatars. The problem is how to introduce Russian into Ukraine’s education sphere.
Without major changes, the stated “Concept of Language Education in Ukraine” is an undisguised attempt to reinstate Russia’s age-old imperial policy, precisely the kind that was enforced by the Bolsheviks when they took over Ukraine. Once again, Russian is proclaimed as the language of interethnic communication in Ukraine. Once again, this language is laid down as “free choice” as the language of instruction. The big questions are: What kind of university graduates are being prepared for what kind of Ukraine? Which language of instruction will they choose? Do these educational establishments have the moral right to refer to themselves as “national” ones? Too bad, given our education and cultural realities, these questions remain rhetorical.
Both authors hold Ph.D.’s in Philology
