Violations of academic freedom under the slogan of “protecting the constitutional order”
Dmitry Dubrovsky
Photo: Russia’s practice of “preventing extremism” monitors all living things and kills freedom of research and instruction. Photo by Lianhao Qu on Unsplash
Fighting Extremism vs. Academic Freedom
The fight against extremism and terrorism often restricts freedom of speech. This applies just as much to academic freedom.
It is obvious that the fight against terrorism and extremism requires protecting society from the spread of hate speech. The question is how such prohibitions and restrictions affect freedom of teaching and freedom of research.
Researchers note how convenient it is for non-democratic regimes to use policies to combat extremism and terrorism to legitimize restrictions on political freedoms and justify direct repression.
The use of universal legal terms—the “fight against extremism” and the “fight against terrorism”—in such cases becomes a screen for violating the rights and freedoms of citizens. This applies to no lesser extent to academic rights and freedoms.
“Concept for Combating Extremism”
The new Concept for Combating Extremism, signed by Putin on December 28, 2024, is just another document from Putin’s repressive regime in which legitimate goals—the fight against extremism and terrorism—are mixed with obvious ideological, political, and nationalistic goals.
This proves that the state wants to increase pressure on academic rights and freedoms, while simultaneously expanding practices that restrict the activities of:
- Russian students and teachers who would like to study and do internships abroad
- Russian educational and research institutions
- independent educational and research institutions abroad (in so-called “unfriendly,” democratic states that have condemned Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine), which, according to the text of the Concept, pose the “threat of spreading extremist ideas.”
Extremism According to Europe and Russia
In order to shift the fundamental meaning of the term “extremism,” Russian judicial bodies have long interpreted the term differently than it is understood in Europe.
- In Europe, it refers to activity aimed at violating the constitutional rights of citizens.
- In Russia, it is “activity directed against the constitutional order.”
To this already broadened understanding of extremism, the new Concept for Combating Extremism adds provisions that directly threaten academic freedom in Russia.
History under Attack
First and foremost, various actions “aimed at the deliberate distortion of history and the rehabilitation of Nazism” are included in the definition of “extremism.” The Concept classifies these actions, among others, as “Russophobia.” The same document defines Russiaphobia as “an unfriendly, hostile attitude toward citizens of Russia, the Russian language and culture, traditions and history of Russia.”
At the same time, the threat of “Russophobia” comes mainly from outside. “External extremist threats” are understood as “the falsification of world history, the revision of views on the place and role of Russia in it.” It is Russian history, particularly in the twentieth century, that is placed under the ideological control of the state.
“Falsification of history.” “Certain foreign states” are mentioned within the Concept—states whose policies, according to the authors, are aimed at “falsifying the role of the USSR in World War II, downplaying its contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan.”
It is well known from previous practice what actions the Russian regime and Russian law understand “distortions of history” to be:
- Claims that the USSR and Nazi Germany shared equal responsibility for the outbreak of World War II
- Especially harshly persecuted are the claims about the aggressive nature of Stalin’s foreign policy toward Finland (the Winter War) and Poland (the occupation of part of Polish territory at the beginning of World War II).
- Even the statement that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies before the war is understood by Russian law and some Russian historians as a “falsification.”
Recently, we saw the first example of criminal prosecution for writing a scientific article: in a review of a book about World War II, a historian “criticized the Soviet version of the course and results of the war, and also spoke about the negative role of Soviet military leaders.” The case was opened under Article 354.1: “rehabilitation of Nazism.”
“Decolonization.” Another threat the Concept qualifies as “extremist” is the “idea of decolonization.” In the document, this is equated with separatism.
It is therefore evident that all social researchers who in one way or another use theories of post-coloniality and discuss the need for the decolonization of Russia could be deemed “extremists.”
The ideological historical narrative. To combat these “negative influences,” the Concept proposes introducing a general course of Russian history that “objectively illuminates” this history and “reveals external and internal threats to Russia’s existence in different historical periods.”
In other words, the idea is to continue and expand the practice of teaching ideological courses in which it is considered “objective” to glorify Russia’s imperial policies and wars of conquest in the past, present, and desired future. This makes Russian historical science—and especially historical education—part of the Russian military-political machine.
“Extremist Scientists from Across the Border”
The authors of the Concept are particularly concerned about the “destructive activities of representatives of foreign and international non-governmental organizations,” who allegedly “inspire…protest activities among the population” under the guise of “educational projects.”
While the Russian authorities have been discussing this topic for a while, historically it was not considered “extremist behavior.”
Thus, in its 2020 report, the Federation Council Commission stated that the US considers “young people, students, and academic circles” to be the main target audiences for its “interference” policy. According to the authors of that report, Russian “academic structures” should ensure this intervention in the interests of the State Department and the Pentagon.
Now, the main focus is on pressure and threats against those organizations abroad that continue independent educational and research activities.
- The German Society for East European Research (DGO) was not only labeled an “undesirable organization,” but was also declared an “extremist organization.”
- As part of the same logic of “undesirability,” which is now effectively equated with “extremism,” Bard College and the Free University were declared undesirable organizations in Russia.
In order to prevent contact with these “harmful institutions,” it is proposed to “create a database of people who have left the Russian Federation…to undergo training at foreign centers in unfriendly states.”
No less obvious is the desire to limit access to independent information. In Russia, all materials published by “extremist organizations” automatically become “extremist materials.” The Concept calls for continuing the practice of “measures to prevent the import…production and distribution” of such extremist materials.
An example is the campaign to find and destroy educational and scientific materials printed with the support of the Open Society Foundations, which have been declared “undesirable.”
The “friendly states” are also given tasks. The Concept proposes “taking measures to adjust the educational programs of organizations located in the states of Central Asia and the South Caucasus” (including, apparently, the network of so-called “Slavic” universities) in order to disseminate programs there to prevent “Russophobia, extremism, terrorism, and nationalism.”
Search for Extremists in Universities
The Concept proposes implementing similar programs in Russian educational institutions.
Social and humanitarian focuses. There has been a proposal to introduce courses with an “anti-extremist focus” for students in social and humanitarian focuses. Given the content of the Concept, it is not difficult to surmise what kind of courses these will be and how they will directly violate the students’ right to freedom from indoctrination.
“Preventing extremism.” The proposal to “improve measures to prevent extremism in educational institutions” appears to legitimize the practice that has developed over the past few years.
We have already described the creation of coordination centers on the issues of developing an active civic position among young people, preventing interethnic and interfaith conflicts, countering the ideology of terrorism, and preventing extremism. These centers are effectively becoming “departments for combating extremism” in Russian universities. Together with official representatives of the administration, they will clearly continue to fight dissent under the guise of “fighting extremism.”
The Concept separately stipulates measures against “the penetration of extremists into educational institutions.” In fact, “foreign agents” are already banned from teaching in Russia. Apparently, the practice of vetting and filtering instructors at higher education institutions will be expanded.
Scientific Anti-Extremism
The Concept proposes using Russian science itself to create propaganda materials and research aimed at limiting academic freedom and persecuting dissenters.
Thus, it proposes attracting “scientists”
- for “explanatory” (i.e., propaganda) work to “prevent extremism”
- to create “agitation and propaganda materials” aimed at “countering extremist ideology”
The Concept suggests “developing artificial intelligence technologies” to “monitor the media.” In other words, these scientists are supposed to be involved in creating tools to search for “extremist” activity on the Internet.
Finally, the Concept calls for conducting “scientific research aimed at establishing the historical facts and social patterns involved in the emergence and development of radical (including extremist) movements, and describing for scientific purposes the processes of dissemination and propaganda of extremist and other destructive views and ideas.”
An example of such “scientific anti-extremism” is the work of “religious scholar and destructologist” Roman Silantyev. Not only is his “destructology” used to draw scientific conclusions on extremism cases (as in the case of Evgenia Berkovich and Svetlana Petriychuk), but the destructology textbook will be used in “advanced training courses” for higher education instructors.
* * *
The Russian understanding and practice of anti-extremism threaten freedom of research and instruction, especially in the disciplines of history, sociology, and political science.
At the same time, they justify the indoctrination of students through various ideological courses, censorship, and the persecution of students and teachers as “extremists.”
In turn, all this threatens the principles of academic integrity. The theories of “scientific anti-extremism” being developed are not scientific approaches, but ideological products whose task is to justify the repressive and censorship policies of the state, particularly in the field of science and higher education. The emergence and development of these approaches will undoubtedly negatively affect the principles of academic freedom and academic integrity.
0 Comments