Translated material
What does the coming day have in store for us?
Vladimir Volokhonsky, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Psychology at St. Petersburg State University, continues a series of essays about current events at his university. For his previous article “Self-destruction of university self-government,” see TrV-Nauka No. 13 (57) dated July 6, 2010, p. eleven.
So, the university reform of St. Petersburg State University in 2010 finally separated teachers from administrative clerks, at the same time transferring full power over the formal side of the educational process to these clerks. The logical response to maintaining the position of the dean as an elective one (which was stipulated by the federal law on two universities) was to change his powers. In response to my question about what they would be like, the rector of St. Petersburg State University Nikolai Kropachev replied: “The same as before the revolution,” apparently referring to the university charter of 1884.
The pre-revolutionary “cast iron” charter, however, eliminated the election of deans. After clarifying questions, it became clear that these functions would be reduced to organizing the work of the faculty Academic Council. And the Academic Council will deal with educational programs and competitive selection of teachers. So it is no longer the fate of deans to approve the class schedule - this will be done by the responsible vice-rector or his subordinate.
The rector’s subordinates will be much less concerned about the convenience of teachers: now that this work is out of the control of an elected official, there will be no special need to take our opinion into account. Except for general humane reasons. Maybe it’s better - let’s switch to a modular schedule, which, as a rule, is opposed by many teachers, especially older ones, who are accustomed to delivering their lectures on the same day, in the same classroom for the last twenty years. Sometimes even word for word... And it is they who make up the backbone of scientific councils that regularly stand in the way of progress. Now they will not be able to stand in the way of the modernization course announced by the President!
The logic of building a “vertical of power” at the university is partly similar to how a similar process developed at the state level. However, it was not possible to bring the election of deans to a situation where gubernatorial elections were abolished (2004). But it turned out even better - they were simply deprived of their powers, thereby eliminating the existing feudal fragmentation and excess sovereignty of faculties.
A certain development of this logic (perhaps unconsciously) was the order of the first vice-rector [1] for educational and scientific work on the organization of activities, respectively, of the educational, methodological and scientific commissions of the faculties. This order prohibits deans from submitting issues to the Academic Council (its agenda is approved by the dean) without the consent of these commissions. The composition of the commissions is approved by the first vice-rector. I think, however, that this order will meet the same fate as the sensational (by the way, signed by him) order on the export commission. People are in no hurry to meticulously implement it.
It seems to me that such a change in the situation, willy-nilly, should lead to the maturation of a conflict between the university as a community of teachers and students and the university as an authoritarian administrative structure. Until now, this conflict was partially resolved through the illusion of the election of key administrators, although, as a rule, there was no real opportunity to re-elect someone for not working well. But the abstract possibility itself... The fact that these people had to be the result of our choice did not allow us to draw such a strict line between teachers and administrators, because almost all the main issues that worried us were decided by the elected dean.
Inviting influential people to become deans has also become a new trend. Valery Gergiev was elected dean of the Faculty of Arts, and the post of dean of the newly created (on the basis of the Smolny Institute) Faculty of Liberal Sciences and Arts was assigned to Alexei Kudrin. This positive initiative is designed to strengthen the role of the university in society and strengthen the position of St. Petersburg State University. However, not being connected with the faculty through their entire biography, these people, in my opinion, are unlikely to take the problems of the employees to heart. And they won’t do any real work.
Several scenarios for further developments can be proposed:
1. "Bright future." The rector’s progressive team is introducing new procedures that are quickly making life easier for all of us. The teaching load of teachers is reduced, laboratories are filled with modern equipment, trips to international conferences are paid for teachers, and all conditions for fruitful scientific activity are created.
2. "Degradation". The progressive team of the rector is finally destroying all conditions for scientific activity at the university, formalizing everything they can get their hands on.
3. “Notorious stability.” All the modernization efforts of the rector’s progressive team are stalled, and we continue to live as we lived. It’s just that now we need to get another signature from the vice-rector instead of just the dean’s signature.
Knowledge of history tells us that the third option is the most likely. This is, I would say, the default option. But can we hope for the first? Or would that be overly optimistic? But one way or another, the history of the university is inextricably linked with the history of the country. If new shocks await the political life of our country, they cannot but affect the life of the university. Let's hope. We are good at this.