How Russian teachers survive after being the subject of denunciation letters.
“Pandora’s Sisters”
Photo: The victims have no opportunity to fully familiarize themselves, in a relaxed environment, with the content of the complaint, nor to learn the name of their informant. Photo by Ahmed Zayan on Unsplash
Data
Over the past two years, the topic of anonymous tips in Russia as a whole and in the Russian academic community in particular has become much more relevant than we would like.
It is important to remember that complaints to higher authorities are not unique to any historical period. Indeed, the work of Sheila Fitzpatrick and her colleagues (1996, 1997) addresses similar phenomena to those described here using materials from different eras and cultures.
Instead, what makes the complaints considered here unique is their content. They contain accusations of insufficiently “correct” political stances. This “incorrectness” is reflected in the statements and actions of the accused, and is primarily associated with their anti-war opinions.
Interview Methods
The study is based on a series of 20 unstructured in-depth interviews with teachers at Russian universities who were the subject of complaints due to their anti-war views. Our respondents are employees of different faculties (law, journalism, information technology, etc.). Most are employees of Moscow universities. In addition, the sample includes teachers at universities in the Northwestern, Southern, and Far Eastern Federal Districts. The interviews were collected throughout 2023.
In addition to interviews, we relied on participant observation and monitoring of social media.
Accusers. More than half of the anonymous accusations in our study were written by students. Several were filed by colleagues at the university (security officers, administrative secretaries, unknown colleagues). A few more came from people on the internet.
Consequences. Some of our respondents were dismissed from their jobs after having an accusation filed against them. Almost all of the fired respondents no longer resided in Russia by the time of the interview, which was consequently conducted online.
We cannot say with certainty that the dismissal was a direct result of the accusation, even in those cases where the respondent themselves believes this to be true. Therefore, we will only note the chronological sequence—dismissals occurred following an accusation.
Some respondents continued to work at the same university after the complaint, albeit with conflict and increased control over their work. Their interviews were conducted mainly in person. Some of these interviews were supported by data from participant observation.
All respondents’ personal data, as well as the names of universities, have been hidden.
Anonymous Informants
Victims describe the denunciations as coming suddenly “from above”/”from outside” (from the administration of the educational institution or law enforcement officers). The news may come at the most unexpected moment—on a day off, during a class. It provokes a strong emotional reaction, from indignation and protest to confusion and fear:
The deputy dean for academic activities called on Sunday and said that I showed the students a terrible execution video. She forwarded the video to me. I don’t even know where the video came from—I haven’t watched it myself. [Respondent 4]
Judging from the interviews we collected, the victims have no opportunity to fully familiarize themselves, in a relaxed environment, with the content of the complaint, nor to learn the name of their informant, which has a serious psychological impact. Interview data also show that the text of the complaint is often not shown to them at all, or else shown only briefly (eg., as a sheet of paper in someone else’s hands or fragments that are read out/paraphrased). The full text of the complaint is available only to members of the supervisory bodies.
One natural consequence of this lack of transparency is that the victim tries to reconstruct what happened in one way or another, primarily to identify their informant. The story of these assumptions and of the “investigation” that was conducted becomes an important part of the victim’s narrative:
One of the students—we don’t know for certain who, we have our suspicions and have more or less worked it out, in accordance with the information provided by other students, in accordance with the image of the student we compared, and as it seems to us, one of the students wrote an anonymous complaint. [Respondent 5]
Interpretations of the Informants
Victims view the denunciation not so much as a bureaucratic tool for resolving a specific conflict, but as a morally unacceptable practice that denigrates both the accuser and the entire society that permitted it to happen.
It is very important for victims to explain the actions of the informant to themselves, to build their social or psychological portrait, to assume and discuss the circumstances—the personality traits of the informant, their past, the possible influence of their environment or nationality, etc. What must have happened to convince them to make an accusation? What reasons and prerequisites prompted them to resort to filing a complaint with the higher authorities?
These narratives may be constructed in the process of trying out different possible explanatory models in search of a suitable one:
The student who made the accusation against me has no idea of what justice is. This conceptual framework is simply unavailable to her […] These tendencies are transmitted genetically, behaviorally. It is ingrained in our upbringing and culture. It is incurable. […] I saw her with her family—a frightened child. It immediately said PTSD to me. […] This student’s brother has been mobilized. Perhaps snitching is a form of protection. She doesn’t understand what she’s supporting. The self-preservation instinct has been switched off, the maternal instinct has been switched off. Money is important […] She is ambitious and quite aggressive. She always sat in front with her friend and they laughed […] This girl was a go-getter. She headed the student council. It’s a whole system: student councils put pressure on students, and student councils consult with the management [Respondent 3].
The logic of the victim’s narrative is linked to an attempt to identify the complainant as an outsider who belongs to a “different” social group and is even somehow deviant from the victim’s point of view. This “otherness,” in the victim’s opinion, explains and even justifies the “spoiled” informant.
The Administration’s Reaction
Once received, this “signal” requires a response from the administration, but these responses, as the collected cases show, may differ.
In some cases, the administration uses all available means (threats and bullying, surveillance, setting impossible tasks) to fire an employee or force them to resign.
In other cases, on the contrary, the administration seeks not to respond to a denunciation with repressive administrative measures, but to “let it slide,” limiting the institutional response to “educational discussions” and even warning the employee:
The vice-rector called me into the hallway and wrote on a piece of paper: “You are being bugged, you are being followed.” [Respondent 2]
Informal agreements with the administration to maintain their position are contingent on employees’ self-censoring on social media and in other public situations, refraining from publicly expressing their position:
The president called me after a conversation with the FSB agent and said: “There is an inquiry into you from the regional administration. You will be fired. You must keep quiet, but you are not quiet.” [Respondent 2]
From our participant observation data, researchers who remain employed under these contracts no longer allow themselves to speak openly and publicly. If they do speak out on uncensored platforms, they do so to a narrow circle of colleagues without subsequent publication of the recording; on little-known platforms; and/or completely anonymously or by indicating their name but formally refusing to be affiliated with their place of work.
Reactions from Colleagues and Students: The Importance of Support
Many respondents mention that they received less support following the denunciation than they would have hoped. Their immediate social circle expressed support and solidarity mainly through direct messages, against a background of general silence or condemnation.
[After my dismissal] I didn’t see my colleagues anymore. One wrote me in secret to say that I did great. And another gently hinted—although these are her husband’s views—that I was a right-wing radical. [Respondent 4]
Respondents highly value support from students:
My students write me from Russia, that’s supportive. [Respondent 7]
Some respondents noted that they felt that students expressed more active support than their colleagues. This applies to non-public cases.
Publicity often gives the victim a wider base of support. If the story is shared on social media, the denunciation and the administration’s response become the subject of emotional discussion:
During that time, reposts and questions poured in from friends and colleagues from the university who saw the link in the group “Overheard at [University].” By the time I went there, there were about 1,500 views and some comments. I published my comment, it received many likes and words of support, and I felt relieved. [Respondent 6]
But not every discussion generates support: commenters may have different attitudes toward the situation. Whereas commenters on Facebook generally express support for those who have suffered after expressing anti-war views, some commenters on Vkontakte take the opposite position, supporting the actions of the complainant and the decisions of the administration.
(This applies not only to complaints in academia, but more generally to modern denunciations of the expression of anti-war opinions, the consequence of which was dismissal or other such sanctions).
An Atmosphere of Mistrust
Interviews with victims show how mutual suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation between disloyal employees and the administration are growing. Concerns are beginning to arise from anyone who, by virtue of their convictions or official duties, is connected with the university administration, university security, or external security agencies.
This goes for university psychological services as well—these specialists are potentially dangerous from the point of view of “disloyal” employees:
Now they are introducing psychologists, this year they have already brought in two. The head of the department went to work in the psychological service and reports everything to the top. [Respondent 15]
* * *
The data presented here, as well as other materials collected over two years of research, allow us to determine the position of a modern university teacher. S/he is embedded in a vertical hierarchy of power, under the control of:
- the student body (from below)
- the administration (from above)
- security forces (from outside)
- and their members—employees of the university security services (from inside)
As a result, a teacher has no opportunity to publicly voice or defend anti-war views either within academia or outside it.
0 Comments