Текст опубликован 16 августа 2024 (URL: https://cisrus.org/ru/2024/08/16/academic-freedom-un-rus/)
Кандидат исторических наук, исследователь факультета социальных наук Карлова университета (Прага), научный сотрудник Центра независимых социологических исследований в США (CISRUS), профессор Свободного университета (Латвия), ассоциированный член Правозащитного совета Санкт-Петербурга
Официальный ответ Делегации РФ в ООН на вопросы Спецдокладчика по праву на образование — классический пример «ответов без ответов».
Дискуссии об академической свободе часто начинаются с поисков правовых определений, и эти поиски сразу же приводят к обескураживающему результату: общепринятого обязывающего документа, в котором бы давалось определение академической свободы, нет.
В то же время есть ряд Конвенций и других строгих норм международного права, из которых следует:
академическая свобода, с одной стороны, связана со свободой слова,
с другой — защищается как составная часть права на образование.
В результате оказывается, что часть академической свободы — это то, что называется «негативной свободой», то есть то, что требует гарантий невмешательства со стороны государства, «свобода от».
С другой стороны — это напротив — «позитивная свобода», «свобода для».
Применительно к логике защиты прав человека в первом случае мы ожидаем от государства гарантий его невмешательства (в частности, запрет цензуры, свобода исследований и печати).
Во втором случае, напротив, ожидаем активных действий — гарантий, связанных с доступом к образованию, финансовых гарантий для преподавателей, исследователей и студентов и т.д.
Поскольку для академических свобод нет особого документа (помимо Рекомендаций о статусе преподавательских кадров высших учебных заведений 1997 г.), этот вопрос редко обсуждается в ООН.
Тем не менее ситуация начала меняться.
Недавно Спецдокладчица ООН по праву на образование Фарида Шахид (Farida Shaheed) обратилась к странам, организациям и исследователям с просьбой ответить на вопросы, ответы на которые легли в Доклад об академической свободе в связи с правом на образование. Вопросы такие:
каким образом защищается академическая свобода в национальном праве,
как защищаются права преподавателей, исследователей, студентов и сотрудников научных и образовательных учреждений,
какие проблемы или недостатки препятствуют защите академической свободы,
каковы особенности защиты академической автономии, особенно в части возможного негативного влияния донора (государственного или негосударственного) на академическую автономию,
наконец, о практиках видеонаблюдения и записи в учебных заведениях.
На эти вопросы могли отвечать как отдельные организации, страны, так и исследователи.
Спецдокладчица исходила из того, что «академическая свобода состоит из четырех основных частей:
«право преподавать,
участвовать в дискуссиях и дебатах с людьми и сообществами как в академии (в том числе в аудиториях), так и вне академического сообщества,
проводить исследования,
распространять мнения и результаты исследований».
Исследователям прав человека хорошо известна обычная практика авторитарных режимов, как «отчитываться» о мнимом соблюдении прав человека в конкретной стране, которая их постоянно нарушает. Для этого достаточно просто перечислять официальные документы, которые регламентируют те или иные права человека.
Вопрос о реальном исполнении этих документов и реальной ситуации не стоит вообще. Предполагается, что если что-то гарантировано законом, то оно исполняется полностью и без изъятий.
В этом смысле официальный ответ Делегации РФ в ООН на вопросы Спецдокладчика — классический пример такого рода ответов.
Ответ в основном состоит из пространных цитат российского законодательства, включая Модельный закон о высшем образовании 2002 г. и последнюю версию «Закона об образовании», в ч.1 ст.47 которого содержится полный список того, что российские законодатели считают составными частями академических прав и свобод в России.
Обратите внимание: в перечисленном отсутствуют важные нюансы — например, право на распространение результатов исследования.
Право на участие в управлении. Однако наиболее серьезная проблема — это формулировка «права на участие в управлении образовательной организацией… в порядке, установленном уставом этой организации».
События последних 15 лет показали, что такая формулировка на практике означает. Ученый совет как коллегиальный орган становится все более подчинен учредителю — например, Министерству науки и высшего образования. Его возможности серьезно ограничиваются именно Уставом, изменить который Ученый совет не в силах.
Права педагогов. Тем не менее профессора в российских институтах высшего образования имеют некоторые гарантии академической свободы. Про реальное воплощение этой свободы, а также про какие бы то ни было юридические споры по этим вопросам официальный ответ умалчивает.
Удивительно, что в официальном ответе нет даже упоминания довольно внятного особого мнения судьи Конституционного суда РФ К. Арановского: он напрямую защиту академической автономии с академическими правами педагогов.
Впрочем, других решений российских судов, которые бы обсуждали вопросы академической свободы, практически нет — речь в них идет исключительно о спорах в рамках трудового права. Само понятие академической свободы в них, как правило, не используется.
Права студентов. Перечисление прав студентов в ответе также заимствовано из Закона об образовании. Сразу становится очевидным, насколько сильно их академические права отличаются от прав профессоров.
Основными в этом списке из того же самого закона являются именно социально-экономические права. При этом вопрос о «свободе учиться» решен примерно так же, как право профессуры участвовать в управлении институтом. Поскольку для студентов «свобода учиться» часто связывается именно с возможностью выбора курсов и преподавателей, то сама по себе широта выбора создает границы академической «свободы учиться».
Закон же «Об образовании» утверждает эту свободу как «…выбор факультативных и элективных учебных предметов, курсов, дисциплин (модулей) из перечня, предлагаемого образовательной организацией». Часто студенты российских вузов как раз обращают внимание на то, что список курсов по выбору или очень мал, или вообще не предполагает выбора, по сути, предлагая дополнительные обязательные курсы.
Автономия. Таким же специфическим образом закон официальный ответ Российской Федерации трактует и вопросы автономии образовательного учреждения. Согласно официальному ответу, российское законодательство «…гарантирует свободу в определении содержания образования, выборе образовательных технологий, а также выборе учебно-методического обеспечения».
Между тем реальная практика работы и Министерства высшего образования и науки, и Рособрнадзора показывает, что в реальности основная свобода — особенно теперь, после начала войны — сосредоточена не на содержании образования, которое теперь в высокой степени формализуется самим Министерством. Эта свобода выражается в формах преподавательской деятельности и образовательных технологиях. Другими словами, и тут вопрос академической автономии с самого начала ограничен административными рамками, как это сделано и с академическими правами и свободами.
Особо оговаривается при этом, что, по мнению авторов официального ответа, в Российской Федерации «…педагогическим работникам запрещается использовать образовательную деятельность для политической агитации».
В существование такого запрета просто невозможно поверить, поскольку введенные в российских вузах повсеместно провоенная агитация, милитаристская пропаганда и идеологические курсы как раз и являются той самой «политической агитацией», которая, по официальной версии, запрещена.
Кроме того, среди ограничений, которые официальный ответ считает правовыми, перечислены «сообщение обучающимся недостоверных сведений об исторических, национальных, религиозных и культурных традициях народов, а также побуждения к действиям, противоречащим Конституции Российской Федерации»
Наконец, последним, что сообщает официальный ответ — это утверждение, что видеонаблюдения в российских учебных заведениях, которые официально оправдываются «контртеррористическими мероприятиями», делаются якобы с разрешения и ведома «всех участников образовательного процесса». В некоторых случаях записи занятий в аудиториях используются для «оргвыводов», например, в случае выявленного «антипатриотизма», который проявляется в антивоенных или других критических замечаниях.
Разумеется, реальная ситуация с академическими правами и свободами через призму права на образование не исчерпывается формальными гарантиями — тем более что эти гарантии сплошь и рядом нарушаются. В целом текст фактически содержит пространные цитаты из Закона об образовании и малоинформативен. Более того, на целый ряд вопросов официальная делегация вообще не ответила.
В то же время, Спецдокладчица получила и более подробный и развернутый на вопросы относительно ситуации в России — его написали автор данного текста в соавторстве с исследовательницей из Университета Эдинбурга Касей Качмарской.
В этом тексте на примере исследований и правовых документов авторы прежде всего обращают внимание на то, что в России очень слабо защищаются академические права и свободы — при том, что они регулярно нарушаются, прежде всего руководством российских научных и образовательных учреждений.
При этом особенно страдают как коллегиальные формы управления, так и институты академической этики, превратившиеся в репрессивный механизм наказаний за антивоенные или оппозиционные взгляды.
Что касается свободы преподавания, авторы обращают внимание на серьезные проблемы, связанные с идеологической перестройкой российского высшего образования. Это затронуло различные дисциплины — от прав человека до российской истории, где появляется «патриотическая» версия содержания этих дисциплин.
Наконец, в записке обращается внимание на законы «об иностранных агентах» и «о нежелательных организациях». Книги и учебные пособия, изданные «иностранными агентами» или при содействии «нежелательных организаций», нельзя использовать в научной и образовательной деятельности.
Для России в условиях ее выхода из Совета Европы механизмы ООН становятся местом для формулировок и обсуждения различных проблем, связанных с правами человека и академическими правами как составной их частью.
Публикации альтернативных мнений дают возможность аргументированно ставить под сомнение официальные заявления российских властей относительно ситуации с академическими правами и свободами.
Вот этот альтернативный доклад.
DOI: 10.55167/9b094f7f648d
Dmitry Dubrovskiy, Katarzyna Kaczmarska
1. How is academic freedom defined and protected in the constitution or laws of your country, and what are possible limitations or restrictions? Please provide the original citation and source, as well as a summary of relevant judicial practice, if any.
Russian Federation law protects academic freedom as a part of the freedom of creative work. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 44 (1992, with amendments in 2020) states that:
1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of literary, artistic, scientific, technical, and other types of creative activity and teaching. Intellectual property shall be protected by law1. Russia is a federative state, but only 23 of 83 subjects of the Russian Federation have the same article in the regional constitution2.
The Federal Law “About Education in the Russian Federation” touched on the question of academic freedom, mentioning the basic principles of education (Article 3):
autonomy of the educational organizations, the academic rights and freedoms ofpedagogical workers and students…
Article 47 of this Law is describing these rights and freedoms in detail. They include
*freedom of teaching, free expression of their opinion, freedom from interference in professional activities;
freedom to choose and use pedagogically justified forms, means, and methods of teachingand education;
the right to creative initiative, the development, and application of the author’s programs and methods of teaching and education within the limits of the implemented educational program, a separate subject, course, or discipline (module);
the right to choose textbooks, teaching aids, materials, and other means of teaching and education under the educational program and in the manner established by the legislation on education;
the right to participate in the development of educational programs, including curricula, academic calendars, work schedules of subjects, courses, disciplines (modules), methodological materials, and other components of educational programs;
the right to conduct scientific, scientific-technical, creative research activities, participate in experimental and international activities, developments, and implement innovations3.
Because constitutionally, academic freedom is defined within the freedom of expression, constitutional restrictions of academic freedom are the same as freedom of speech, which is guaranteed p. 1, Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Therefore, there are exclusions from such protection, listed on p.2 of the same article:
“Propaganda or agitation that incite social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity are not permitted». Freedom of research could also be restricted because of security measures: part 2, article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees freedom of information, but with a restriction regarding state secrets:
«A federal law shall determine the list of data comprising state secrets»4.
Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the freedom to teach and study are limited to several questions. Only a few decisions of the Constitutional Court are devoted to this question. The reference to academic freedom could be found in the discussion of university autonomy and the working agreement of the professors.
An important finding is that although academic autonomy is not mentioned in the text of the Constitutional Court, it “is the fundamental principle of the activities of universities and is one of the legal principles that determine state policy in the field of education and the relationship between the state and universities”5 . The same position was repeated in the other decision — as a dissent opinion of Judge K. Aranovskiy, where he connects academic autonomy with the protection of academic rights6.
Most of the legal practice around Russian Academia is concerned with the working contracts and disputes regarding the conditions of the work agreement and its duration. Although all these cases mostly touched on the question of labor law, the Constitutional Court has made critical comments about the academic rights of the faculty. In the Decision on A. Podakov case (2022) Constitutional Court mentioned the peculiarity of the University lecturers’ profession, which is based on the “…creative atmosphere, including due to academic traditions”. The court stated that implementing the constitutional freedoms of scientific creativity and teaching is possible only on the condition of a stable long-term working contract7. In the recent case (Alebastrova, 2023), the Court confirmed this position8.
2. Are academic staff, teachers, and students all entitled to academic freedom?
Does this differ by level of education? Please explain.
The Law “On Education”; enumerates a broad set of rights for teachers, staff, and students. However, the set of rights significantly varies. In the case of teachers and scientific staff, it concerns a full set of rights, understood as academic rights and freedoms, the right to teach, the right to research, the right to participate in the management of an educational or research organization, as well as “the right to criticize the institution” — the place of their work. The rest of the employees of scientific and educational institutions, designated as “others”, do not possess academic rights and freedoms. As for the students, their set of rights significantly differs.
Article 34, Law on Education, consists of a list of the academic rights of students (a total of 29), mostly related to the right to education (a right to choose educational organization, individual plan of education, selection of elective courses), free use of the library and other information resources, right to participate in the research and scientific projects, free scientific publications, also right to
«Respect for human dignity, protection against all forms of physical and psychological violence, insults to personality, protection of life and health» and «Freedom of conscience, information, free expression of one’s views and beliefs»9.
Thus, lecturers, research fellows, and students possess academic rights. Still, the content of it is very different.
3. What do you consider to be (a) the main challenges to academic freedom and (b) gaps in the legal framework for protecting academic freedom?
a) The challenges stretch from the general, which include: the vagueness of the laws that can directly to how higher education is organized in Russia and in particular its excessive centralization (universities depend on the state for funding, teaching licenses, accreditation; state institutions also play a significant role in nominating university rectors effectively restricting institutional autonomy). There are also multiple specific laws that may be used to target scholars for undertaking specific research or teaching themes. In particular: the “fake news law”; up to 15 years’ imprisonment for disseminating “false information about the use of the Russian military” (Criminal Code, 207.3); the “no discrediting of the use of the Russian military” law (Criminal Code, 280.3); support for restrictive mechanisms (e.g. sanctions) punishable under Criminal Code, 284.3; administrative fines for comparing the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany. Specific laws can also be applied to target entire institutions. For instance, the Free University (also known as the Free Moscow University), an online tertiary education platform launched in 2020 smf established in response to academic freedom violations and over-bureaucratization of the state tertiary education sector (this university’s manifesto declared the enjoinment of academic freedom as its key tenet and offered a course on academic freedom). In 2023, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation declared the Free University an “undesirable organization” and — since participation in the activities of such an organization can led to prosecution — the Free University suspended its activities on the territory of the Russian Federation.
In addition to those, there is the expectation on part of the management of public universities for their academic staff to remain “politically neutral” and for universities to remain “outside of politics”, which boils down to scholars and students being expected not to express political views and/or participate in any political or civic activity. There is also growing fear amongst academic staff of student surveillance of the teaching delivery and content. Taken together, these aspects contribute to creating the atmosphere of fear (for one’s job or promotion prospects, for the students and their wellbeing) and result in excessive propensity to self-censor.
b) various forms of constitutional legal protection for academic rights and freedoms exist in international practice, particularly within the European educational space. Russia belongs to the type of countries where academic freedom is not present in the Constitution, but its main provisions are outlined in the Education Law.
Nonetheless, it would be possible to improve the situation by protecting academic rights and freedoms and academic autonomy in the legislative sphere.
First and foremost, there is no definition of academic autonomy in the Constitution; the definition by the Constitutional Court, which mentions academic autonomy, does not refer to a specific article of the Constitution, which does not allow for linking academic autonomy to the specific text of the Constitution.
At the same time, no decisions by the Constitutional Court directly address issues of academic freedom and its violations. It is vital to consider that Russia is a federation, and the various federal subjects may have different views on articulating academic freedom and autonomy; however, this difference in the constitutional law of the subjects of the Russian Federation needs to be made present.
Finally, more than the mere listing of academic freedoms in the law is needed to answer the question of who is responsible for their protection in educational institutions, which bodies are responsible for protecting academic freedom, and how this freedom can be protected. In this regard, the Education Law could be improved toward better European and international standards.
4. Please explain the autonomy and self-governance enjoyed by educational institutions at the different tiers of education. Please explain what autonomy and self-governance entail. Are there restrictions on police or military personnel entering educational institutions? If so, please share the rules.
The law “On Education in the Russian Federation” defines academic autonomy in Article 28th.
1. An educational organization has autonomy, which means independence in the implementation of educational, scientific, administrative, financial and economic activities, development and adoption of local regulations following this Federal Law, other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, and the charter of the educational organization.
2. When implementing educational programs, educational organizations are free to determine the content of education, choose educational technologies, and choose educational and methodological support unless otherwise established by this Federal Law*.
Russia has 724 universities in total, 213 of which are non-governmental.
Russian universities are legally split into three groups: kazennoye (governmental), budget, and autonomous educational institutions. The first group — the military and some judiciary education and training centers- does not have autonomy and is directly governed by the relevant Ministry, either the Ministry of Defense or the General Prosecutor’s office. Most of the Russian universities are budgetary institutions that possess some level of autonomy, mainly in the budget sphere. Autonomous organizations have the highest level of autonomy, but it is about 10 percent of all Russian higher educational institutions. All non-governmental organizations are autonomous organizations as well. All autonomous organizations can develop their charters and create internal governance bodies. Only autonomous organizations have a supervisory board responsible for most management duties; it regulates financial plans, and procurement approves the rector. Autonomous organizations can create their own rules for enrollment, salaries, and financial plans. The previous two groups have a low level of autonomy.
“Kazennoye” (government) cannot own the property, and unspent public funding and all income generated should be sent to the founding ministry. Budgetary organizations use the public funds scheme (since 2015 — based on the KPI rate) as autonomous, but most of the decisions on the budget spending are up to the ministry. Thus, the level of autonomy is different based on the legal type of the institution.
All higher educational institutions should follow the state educational standards in education and establish a minimum wage for employees. Some universities have an exclusive right to establish their own educational standards, allegedly higher than those of federal universities. Also, all Russian universities can select staff and determine the conditions of their hiring.
Academic Councils mainly represent the self-governance of Russian universities. After the educational reforms in 2012, most Russian universities changed their Charters, and the Academic Council lost its previous opportunity to approve the rector’s appointment. Some universities — in return for the substantial financial investment from the Russian budget in the frame of academic excellence programs — have decided to substitute the previous procedure of rector election for the rector’s appointment by the Ministry. At the same time, the personnel of the Academic Council were seriously changed, with a decreasing percentage of elected academics and a higher level of managers ex officio. Finally, new Charters of Russian Universities seriously restricted the discretion of the Academic Council, and its participation in the decision-making process has been declined. Nevertheless, academic councils can still participate in the discussion devoted to the content of education (syllabus, new programs) and serve as a final step in the academic selection.
The V-dem Index for Russian institutional autonomy demonstrates that institutional autonomy seriously declined in the last ten years, dropping into the ten years to the minimum for all the time of Russian independence and closer to the situation of the late 80th USSR.
5. Please provide examples of institutional guidelines/codes of conduct developed to ensure respect for academic freedom, including from external public or private actors.
A number of universities adopted ethical codes that touch upon academic freedom. For instance, the ethical code of the Higher School of Economics stipulates that “In expert-analytical and applied research activities, no one, including the initiators and customers of work, can prescribe the methods to be used, predetermine the results and conclusions, no matter in whose interests they are made”10. There are no institutional mechanisms, however, to ensure the implementation of those principles. The Tomsk State University’s ethical code emphasises “freedom of creativity” in the pursuit of research, but it does not employ the term “academic freedom”11. The ethical code of the Ural Federal University asserts that “upholding academic freedoms” is one of key aims of the code but it does not elaborate on ways to protect university staff from actors willing to transgress those freedoms12.
6. How is funding, including for research, regulated? Is the process transparent, and are there any guarantees put in place to ensure respect for academic freedom?
The federal budget remains the main funding source for the Russian HE sectors, with region-level funding playing a supplementary role. The state funds a proportion of places at universities (close to 590,000 places in 2022). According to the law adopted on 30 May 2022, the number of those places is to increase by 30%13.
Funding for research has increasingly been distributed in the form of grants and open competitions. The Russian Science Foundation (Rossiiskii Nauchnyi Fond) is the main funder. The funding is provided on the basis of open competitions, directed at different categories of researchers. The process of awarding grants seems to be transparent. The information about all the projects supported by the Foundation is available online. However, the Foundation’s regulations do not mention academic freedom or measures to protect it. In addition, given the political situation in Russia since February 2022, it may be expected that certain topics for research are not accepted by the Foundation, but this would take a form of either informal restrictions, or — more plausibly — of self-censorship on the part of scholars applying for funding.
7. Which rules and regulations protect academic freedom from interferences by commercial actors and financial sponsors at different tiers of education? Please explain
Commercial actors and financial sponsors other than the state and state budget have a limited role in the tertiary education sector and research. This is restrictive in and of itself as the state is the dominant player in funding academic activity with limited sources of alternative funding.
8. Please explain whether and the extent to which academic staff and students, at all levels of education, are subject to surveillance by public authorities, for example through on-site cameras or online scrutiny. Has this led to undue restrictions to academic freedom and freedom of expression in educational institutions?
Based on the results of an interview-based research (results still unpublished), academic staff in disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences is weary of student surveillance of their teaching delivery and content. In addition, on-site cameras have been placed at most campuses but their reach (whether they are in classrooms) varies across different institutions. One of the most recent examples is the Ufa University, which introduced video surveillance across all university complex, including in lecture halls14.
9. Do teachers and professors at all levels of education enjoy freedom of expression in their teaching? Are any limitations imposed, such as remaining “neutral” or forwarding a particular perspective, e.g. on religious and political matters?
The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees freedom of expression: article 29.1 “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech.” Freedom of expression can be restricted to protect society from the “propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority.” The study of every scientific discipline and its professional standards also have specific limits for teachers. Most Russian universities have to follow state educational standards, which limit freedom of teaching in a certain way15.
The level of academic freedom as freedom of expression is decreasing in Russia, especially after the annexation of Crimea.
For legal studies, international relations, and political science, it is prohibited to call this action “annexation” — only “reunification”. Everything connected with the Ukrainian crisis had to be thought of only following the official position of the Russian Federation. Russian authority has put substantial pressure on gender studies16, and LGBT studies is simply impossible in current Russia because of the de-facto re-criminalization of LGBT in the country17.
Because of the Russian full-scale aggression against Ukraine in 2022, the new legal restrictions imposed affected academic freedom and severely restricted freedom of speech as well as academic freedom in the country18. Numerous students and academics have been persecuted because of their public anti-war protests in the auditorium or on social pages19. New mandatory educational courses in history and “bases of the Russian statehood’ 20, introduced in 2023, provide a one-sided, non-critical narrative about Russian history, especially — about the so-called”special military operation” (aka full-scale war against Ukraine). Late October 2023 the Russian Ministry of Higher Education and Science has recommended “avoiding open discussion of any negative political, economic, and social trends” in Russia during academic activities21. Finally, new amendments to the “foreign agent” law consist of a direct ban on teaching for those who are declared “foreign agents”.
10. Please explain the extent to which teachers and professors at different education levels can choose school manuals and other books/resources for teaching and the reasons for any restriction. Have any specific books/materials been banned, including from school libraries, and alternatively, is some material mandatory? If so, why?22.
University lecturers can choose the educational manuals freely. On the contrary, the schoolteachers are in a different situation: Russian legislation consists of conflicting statements concerning this freedom.
Following the Law on Education, all teachers can select educational materials freely.
Article 47 of the Law states that Teaching staff enjoy the right to choose textbooks, teaching aids, materials, and other means of training and education under the educational program and in the manner established by the legislation on education (clause 4, part 3, article 47 of Federal Law No. 273-FZ “On Education”).
At the same time, the Ministry of Education approved the “federal list of educational literature,” from which teacher has a right to choose, and schoolteachers have no right to use the educational materials not listed in the official compendium of the Ministry of Education. Besides that, the learn book’s variation tends to decrease yearly.
What about HEI, there are books banned if they are published by “undesirable organizations” (i.e., Soros Foundation) either written by “foreign agents” or devoted to the “LGBT,” which is considered as “LGBT-propaganda.” In this case, the University could be punished, as it happened with the European University at St. Petersburg23.
DOI: 10.55167/ee6b88f34bac