Russian Law on Educational Activities: Authorities Seize Control Over Public Education
The Ministry of Education has published a draft government regulation titled “Regulation on the Implementation of Educational Activities,” which sets out the “procedures, conditions, and forms” for educational outreach “in organizations engaged in educational, scientific, and cultural activities.”
The regulation states that educational activities can be carried out by government bodies, local authorities, organizations authorized by them, as well as by individuals, sole proprietors, and legal entities. However, individuals must meet several requirements:
- Be of legal age;
- Have at least two years of experience participating in socially significant initiatives;
- Have no bans on teaching activities.
Legal entities must meet the following criteria:
- Not be listed as a “foreign agent” non-profit organization;
- Have no outstanding tax debts;
- Ensure employees have no bans on teaching activities;
- Publish on their website the date of establishment, founder and location, contact phone numbers and email addresses, and information about staff, including education, qualifications, and work experience.
Permitted forms of educational activities include presentations, lectures, seminars, master classes, round tables, discussions, printed informational materials (including online), video and audio demonstrations, and the creation of educational web portals.
Science journalist and popularizer Grigory Tarasevich reacted to the document: “There was hope that the idiocy of the amendments would be offset by the bylaws. No such luck! Here’s the draft government regulation. It’s hell and horror.”
According to Kommersant, the law primarily aims to further restrict the work of “foreign agents.” Irina Shcherbakova, board member of International Memorial, cited the example of the student history competition “A Person in History. Russia — 20th Century,” which Memorial has run since 2000. “The competition is not directly connected to schools; we run it ourselves. But if a student reads about our competition online and decides to participate, are they breaking the law? And are we breaking the law by evaluating their work? It’s impossible to understand,” she said.
The Ministry of Education clarified that the document concerns “schools, theaters, libraries, and other organizations.” For an outsider to give a lecture in an educational, scientific, or cultural organization, they must sign an official contract with the administration. The ministry essentially equates educators with regular teaching staff: they must not have any restrictions on teaching activities as set out in Article 331 of the Russian Labor Code.
The State as the Main Educator
The most important aspect of the amendments and the draft regulation is the image of the state as the main educator, writes Ekaterina Mishina for Novaya Gazeta.
Journalist Dmitry Kolezev concluded from the document that the restrictions should not affect private individuals or organizations engaged in educational activities independently of cultural, scientific, or educational institutions. “This is relatively good news: the regulation is not a ‘catastrophe,’ just a ‘problem.’ The problem is that a) it will now be much harder for the mentioned institutions to invite outside lecturers or event organizers; b) ‘foreign agents’ are now completely banned from cooperating with such institutions. But YouTube videos or social media posts by private individuals should not be affected,” he wrote on his Telegram channel.
However, Kolezev notes that due to vague wording, regulatory and law enforcement agencies or courts could interpret the law and regulation as applying to all citizens and organizations.
Kirill Shulika, deputy chairman of the Democratic Choice NGO, is certain: “They will interpret everything literally, as written. If you want to educate, you need a contract with the organization, no criminal record, and so on, strictly by the book. There’s also the question of how to handle convictions from Soviet times, and how to prove experience. If I gave a lecture, do I have to show a video to inspectors? Previously, no one bothered with contracts; you just gave a lecture, often for free as part of some event.”
Lawyer Kaloy Akhilgov points out another oddity: “The document refers to ‘other areas corresponding to the goals of educational activities as established by paragraph 35 of Article 2 of the Law on Education in the Russian Federation.’ But Article 2 has no paragraph 35. Also, the forms of educational activities include presentations, lectures, seminars, master classes, round tables, and discussions. Publishing printed or video materials is also considered educational activity. So, any online school falls under this.”
The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) criticized the document. RAS Vice President Alexey Khokhlov stated that the draft needs revision and cannot be adopted in its current form. In his view, educational activities should be supported, not subject to unreasonable restrictions.
Previously, the Accounts Chamber also gave a negative review of the bill, calling the proposed rules excessive and likely to restrict the activities of NGOs, discussion platforms, and interest clubs. Public opinion is also largely negative. According to a Levada Center poll, more than a third of Russians (36%) believe the controversial bill is aimed at increasing censorship.
Criticism from Scientists and Educators
Renowned science popularizer and astrophysicist Sergey Popov proposed several amendments to the regulation: “The regulation is written in a purely repressive way. The closest analogy: a bad doctor prescribing an insanely strong remedy with fantastic side effects that almost kills the patient, all to fight some virus. That’s bad medicine; that’s not how you treat people,” Popov told Znak.com.
Most of Popov’s proposed amendments concern the criteria for individuals involved in educational activities:
- “The first requirement is to remove from all points the rule about compliance with Article 331 of the Labor Code. That’s simply impossible.”
This refers to the draft’s requirement that anyone participating in educational events, such as lectures or presentations, must have relevant education and provide a certificate of no criminal record.
“For example, if a school wants to invite a veteran to give a lecture on World War II, that’s now impossible. Most veterans don’t have specialized education and don’t meet Article 331. The same goes for a firefighter or a Chernobyl liquidator. It will even be impossible to hold a school science festival where students present to other students—they’re minors, and that’s also a violation,” Popov explained.
Popov also insists on removing the requirement for a mandatory two-year experience for science popularizers, arguing that Russia lacks a professional corps of educators: “I don’t really understand why contracts are needed. For example, a school in Sakhalin asks me to give a free Zoom lecture on astrophysics. Now, we’d need a contract with signatures in blue ink. I won’t do it and will have to refuse the school—not because I don’t want to, but because I don’t have the time. Honestly, I don’t know who among my colleagues would agree to this.”
RAS Vice President Khokhlov added that he doesn’t see how scientists can now educate people about the need for COVID-19 vaccination without contracts: “Right now, scientists do this without any contracts, including posting educational information online,” he wrote.
Popov also finds it strange that organizations labeled as “foreign agents” are banned from educational activities. This includes Memorial and the Sakharov Center: “Strictly speaking, being a foreign agent doesn’t mean an organization is malicious; it just describes how it operates. There’s already a list of ‘undesirable organizations’ recognized as harmful. The ministry should have included those, not just foreign agents.”
In its current form, Popov believes the regulation “demonstrates the bias of both its authors and the entire system.” “Labeling someone a foreign agent is not about foreign funding per se, but about targeting those disliked by the current leadership,” he explained.
Popov believes the regulation won’t affect most private citizens engaged in informal educational activities, such as sharing cake recipes on Instagram or sewing tips on YouTube. “The main problems will be for scientific, educational, and cultural institutions,” he emphasized. He added that “people don’t yet realize” that these rules will affect all library and museum projects, RAS projects, and open days at universities and research institutes.
“It’s clear the authors don’t understand the specifics of educational outreach: the diversity of forms and the one-off nature of most events. They think of educational activities as a system of large projects with eager participants,” the professor said. He insists that, until now, most outreach was done by enthusiastic scientists, often for free, and the proposed bureaucratic regulation will “kill most projects.”
“I don’t foresee major police crackdowns yet. They’re possible, but for now, school directors fear their own superiors more than the police. During the fight over the amendments, we saw that museum directors weren’t ready to speak out—they’re tightly bound to budget funding. Disobedient directors will be punished and lose funding,” Popov noted.
He himself no longer intends to cooperate with state-funded organizations affected by the new regulation: “I personally plan to stop working with any organizations subject to these rules. Unless there’s a separate regulation for independent lectures, I’ll give talks there and post them on my YouTube channel. Everyone else can do as they please.”