Features of the confrontation between the government and the students universities of Dnieper Ukraine in the 70-80's. XIX century
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2227-6505-2020-31-08
2020-01-01
Abstract:The article analyzes the reasons for the students’ protests that took place in three universities of pre-revolutionary Ukraine: St. Vladimir University in Kyiv, Novorossiysk University in Odessa and Kharkiv University. As a rule, students’ riots arose due to those restrictive and prohibitive measures of the ruling regime which the radical part of the students described to be purely discriminatory. The leadership of the Ministry of National Education and the trustees of the universities persistently tried not to allow for effective elements of student self-government, even when they concerned educational, cultural or charitable areas. The paper also reveals the factors that led to the politicization of students’ unrest, including that explained by changing the social composition of students and limiting the autonomous status of universities, especially after the enactment of the Statute of 1884 which rejected the corporatism. It was emphasized that the students’ protests were quite varied, and the demands also ranged from too radical to moderate. As a rule, it depended on the presence of the group of students who took the leading role during the actions, but could take both extreme and liberal positions. The emphasis is placed on the inconsistency, a certain chaos of the governmental actions, the presence of conservative rather than liberal-minded people among the teaching staff. This situation left students’ groups without the advice of experienced people, except for a small group of sympathizers of privat-docents. The article proves that the unnecessary extremes that were allowed in the speeches and demands by students’ groups, and not only by governmental agencies were explained by the insufficient social maturity of the youth. In particular, the students’ attitude to the professoriate, on the one hand, was quite understandable when they evaluated teachers of different status in terms of not only professionalism but also moral and ethical qualities. On the other hand, the unreasonable subjectivity was allowed when students, without sufficient grounds, considered granting a doctorate to a particular teacher to be illegal. It is noteworthy that the main reason for such censoriousness of students was often the professors’ high demands at the exams. It is important that the change in the social composition of university students with the predominance of so-called commoners, who had mostly low fortunes, exacerbated the situation. After all, the vast majority of students from low-income families were ashamed to admit this fact understanding their dependence on the charitable actions of the government. Therefore, there was a certain dualism: students like these were satisfied with the governmental financial and material assistance, but the regime's restrictive actions pushed them to resist. It was found that the vast majority of students tried not to insist on purely political demands, as the radicals did. To a large extent, the nature of the requirements was formed by the ratio of the number of so-called “white-collars” – students of the active minority and the passive majority. Therefore, their composition was significantly different depending on the university. Thus, students' perception of the importance of corporate events, which, in their opinion, would allow them to implement the socio-political ideals inherent to the 70-80s of the XIX century, was not identical in three universities as well as among individual students’ groups. In addition, we should not forget about the multinational, multi-religious composition of students of pre-revolutionary Ukraine. After all, not only the management of educational institutions, but also the gendarmerie police monitored closely the behavior of “Ukrainophiles”, as well as Catholic and Jewish students. From the point of view of the regime's guards, they were the most dangerous part of the students for the authorities. It is also noted that a certain part of student activists with radical protest views were no longer satisfied with the events during which purely cultural and educational demands were made. Besides, some public organizations, the leftist SRs and anarchists intensified their agitation among the students, using, not without abuse, the expansiveness and age-specific enthusiasm, recklessness of the youth. Furthermore, the authorities generally used force and illicit measures in their actions, refusing even to establish voluntary societies to help low-income students. In terms of comparability, great attention is paid to the active work of students’ societies that existed with the permission of the authorities, wall newspapers, almanacs published by student activists, which took place at Charles University in Prague. The process of students' growing critical attitude to teachers is traced, in particular to those, who in their eyes, did not correspond to the concept of carriers of “reasonable and eternal”. It is emphasized, that such frustration largely accumulated the protest feelings of students, undermining their former faith in the noble educational mission carried out at universities. It is stated that the reason for the large number of leaders heading the students’ movement from medical faculties was their better awareness of the state affairs in the field of health care: excessive mortality, especially of infants and children under 5, insufficient domestic medical system. At the same time, it has been proven that the active assessment of professorial competence was not always objective, since it was more often about teachers’ socio-political face, rather than professionalism. It is important that the 70s of the XIX century became a certain watershed between the two stages of students’ address: liberal-restrained and politically-radicalized. At the same time, the strengthening of students’ protests in the 80s was based on measures aimed at limiting the autonomy of universities and denying them corporatism. The emphasis is placed on the inconsistency of government actions, the presence of a greater number of liberal teachers in course of time, including full professors, but still on the predominance of the conservatives whose loyalty to the current government was beyond doubt. It meant that the abyss that had separated the majority of the students from the teaching staff was only widening. It is also noted that among the students there existed a group of those who did not support permanent confrontations with the teachers or university leadership. Not unreasonably, they believed that radical and often inconsiderate students’ actions only worsened the prospects for resolving the aggravating problems of university life.