In recent years both in the West in general and in the USA in particular we have seen a revival of interest in Russia and Russian – evidence of a reverse in the trends of the past two decades, when interest in these studies persistently declined and the earlier programs were cut back.
The paradox is that those trends were mainly caused by the end of the Cold War, which first led to euphoria and the sense of ultimate ideological victory of the West and triumph of the market democracy model. This was followed by retargeting the foreign policy and strategic services of Western nations towards other regions: the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America and Europe. The emergence of post-Soviet states also played its role, as the available resources were redistributed in favor of other post-Soviet nations and languages.
What has caused the prevalent trend to change during recent years? First of all, this is the end of the abovementioned euphoria and the emergence of an understanding that the America and Western foreign policy was facing a number of new serious challenges. Secondly, this was the recognition that the ‘soft power’ mechanisms were excessively weakened in favor of traditional and economic ‘hard power leverage. Thirdly, this is a change of generations both in the Western intellectual elite and in foreign policy and strategy departments. Under the staff redundancy of the 1990s, these establishments received almost no ‘young blood.’ As a result, by the time when the veterans of those departments had retired, considerable demand for new cadre was generated even under a weaker focus on the post-Soviet region. Fourthly, for the first time in the history of Russia a rather numerous younger generation of immigrants from post-Soviet and East-European nations – have grown up in the West. They have an opportunity to keep in touch with their friends and relatives in CIS and also work in the countries of this region. At the present time many of these young folks are students of high schools and universities and quite a few second and especially third-generation immigrants take interest in their historic roots, and this is by no means a small group – the Russian diaspora in the US alone numbers about 2.6 million people.
What are the real trends of recent years?
Russian language in US schools
Let’s start with secondary education. As was earlier noted, the 1990s saw a “landslide” reduction in the number of students learning Russian and in the number of schools offering Russian classes. As reported by the Committee on College and Pre-College Russian, in the 1996-1997 academic year there were 306 schools with Russian classes, with 319 teachers educating 10,371 students. By 2000-2001 these figures plummeted to 124, 138 and 6,672, respectively (that is, by 59.5%, 56.7% and 35.7%). In the fall of 2005 the former two figures almost remained at the level of 2001 – 126 and 138 – whereas the number of students grew to 7,863. In the fall of 2010 the trend was controversial: the number of schools and teachers dropped again to 96 and 125, respectively, whereas the number of students grew remarkably to 9,049, although falling short of the level of 1996-1997. Thus, although the number of students learning Russian grew by 35.6% compared to 2000 and came to 87.25% of the level in 1996-1997, the number of schools teaching Russian has decreased by 68.6% during these 14 years and the number of teachers – by 60.8%.
The number of states where it was possible to learn Russian also kept consistently dwindling from 43 in 1996-1997 to 35 in 2000 to 28 in 2005 to 25 in 2010 (that is, the total reduction amounted to 41.9%).
Though the development of language programs is a dynamic process, their marked closure in recent years is noteworthy. In the period of 1998-2010, 227 school programs were wound up, including 8 in 2010. Six more programs failed to enroll a single first-year student, which actually guarantees their closure in the future. A number of states including Colorado closed their last Russian courses. Particularly alarming is the tendency towards the closure of a large number of programs in the states with a high share of ‘old’ population with Russian and Orthodox roots (17 in Alaska, 16 in Iowa, 14 in Minnesota, 13 in Utah, 7 in Wisconsin, 6 in Indiana, 5 in Nebraska and 4 in Idaho) as well as in those with sizable diasporas of ‘new’ post-Soviet and East-European immigrants (24 in New York, 11 in Pennsylvania and Illinois each, 8 in Maryland, 6 in California and New Jersey each, and 4 in Massachusetts).
At the same time, 15 new programs have been opened since 2007, including 4 in 2007, 6 in 2008, 2 in 2009 and 3 in 2010. Regional distribution of the new programs is rather curious: 2 in Alaska (a state with a historically high share of population with Russian or Orthodox roots), 2 in California, Illinois and New York each, and one in Pennsylvania and Washington each – the states notable for both traditional and ‘new’ immigrant diasporas. The opening of 3 new programs in Tennessee and 2 in Arizona – the states that never hosted any considerable number of Russian-speaking immigrants – catches the eye.
Nevertheless the number of schoolchildren learning Russian has not fully recovered. Especially alarming is the sharp reduction of teachers of Russian – thus the employment prospects of the graduates from Russian language programs and courses are getting ever more nebulous; hence fewer incentives for learning this language.
It should be noted in conclusion that about 40 different textbooks on Russian are used at schools (19 teachers use teaching aids of their own making), which does not foster universal standards in teaching this language. Most popular are “Golosa” (Voices) used at 20 schools. Thus the print runs of such editions must be very small, their prices are high, and tuition programs are uncoordinated.
Programs of Russian in universities
While the trends are contradictory at the level of tertiary education, the general tendency of recent years has been a growing number of students learning Russian and studying the post-Soviet region. Out of 65 programs of Russian that presented their data in the fall of 2009, 22 reported a growing number of first-year students and about half – a growing number of second-year students. Thus, while 15 first-year programs and 13 second-year programs have been closed, the general tendency towards growth is obvious.
The data on 61 programs as of the fall of 2010 shows that the number of first-year students in 43 of them remained almost unchanged, 7 programs lost from 15% to 50% of students while 11 programs saw growth which has been rather significant in some cases (the number of students of Russian grew from 55 to 75 at the University of Pennsylvania and from 44 to 70 at the Texas Tech University). As for the second-year programs, 44 reported the same number of students, 6 lost from 20% to 50% and 11 saw a dramatic growth (by 2-3 times in some universities). Similar statistics is reported for the school year 2010-2011. Moreover the number of students in 10 first-year programs that reported growth in the previous years has sagged – sometimes to a very low level. Nevertheless, almost half of the programs report on the growing number of students.
Overall, 131 universities and colleges of North America (including 5 two-year colleges) reported having Russian language programs in 2010-11 and this is not all, since many small programs are not reported. Among the largest ones is the West Point Military Academy (127 first-year students and 73 second-year students in spring 2011) as well as the University of Washington (104 and 35), University of Minnesota (77 and 48), University of Indiana (63 and 28), University of New Mexico (66 and 26), University of Oklahoma (53 and 25), University of Ohio (90 and 57), University of Oregon (63 and 19), University of Pennsylvania (75 and 28), George Mason University (47 and 21), Georgetown University (37 and 30), George Washington University (47 and 66), Harvard University (40 and 14), University of Illinois (34 and 27), University of Maryland in Baltimore County (47 and 28), University of Michigan (53 and 27), University of Missouri (50 and 14), University of Montana (51 and 14), University of New Hampshire (57 and 11),
Pittsburg University (55 and 21), University of South Carolina (43 and 23), University of South Florida (52 and 12), State University of New York in Binhampton (31 and 17), Saint Olaf College (43 and 35), University of Tennessee (43 and 27), The College of William and Mary (50 and 28) and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (42 and 11). Also, we should not forget the traditionally strong military linguistic program in Monterey.
At the same time a number of Russian language programs, including major and minor specializations, have been closed of late (in particular, majors in Russian were eliminated in the universities of Alabama and Tennessee). The situation is further exacerbated by the economic recession that has been raging since 2008 and forcing many universities to ‘get rid of’ majors with a small number of students.
Meanwhile 24 universities organized summer courses of Russian in 2011. Among them are a number of elite tertiary institutions, such as Berkley, University of Chicago, Harvard, University of Indiana, University of Illinois, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, University of Michigan, Pittsburg University, University of Virginia and University of California in Los Angeles.
About 500 American students come to Russia for a semester or a longer time and about 1,000 come for a shorter period. Another 1,000 Fulbright academics, research workers and professionals come to Russia, along with those in other similar programs – FLEX, Title IV, Open World, et al. The enrolment of Russian experts in the US nears 3,000 a year; of this amount roughly 2,500 are supported by the American side and the remaining 500 – by the Russian side. A new program of the Russian Ministry of Science and Education is expected to nearly double this number due to a dramatic increase in the number of Russians sent to US graduate and postgraduate schools.
In 2009-2010, 4,875 Russian students were enrolled in US institutions of tertiary learning (according to Open Doors), but it should be borne in mind that this figure includes all Russian citizens, including those students who permanently reside in the USA.
The situation in Canada and UK is similar to that in the US: among the biggest university programs of Russian in Canada is the one at the University of Toronto (77 freshmen and 42 sophomores) and the Memorial University of Newfoundland (51 and 15). The British Association of Slavonic and East European Studies (BASEES) has counted more than 500 members in recent years, of which 350 participate in the Association’s conferences on a regular basis. Although teaching of Russian at schools has been curtailed, the university programs have largely been preserved (despite the attempts to wind up some of them), notwithstanding the pronounced trend towards the general flagging of interest in foreign languages in Britain.
Conclusions
Above all, it is necessary to support the nascent positive trends and create incentives to learning Russian at the school level by providing teaching aids and fellowships and by organizing summer linguistic camps both in the US and in Russia. Secondly, simplification of visa formalities is needed for those who come to Russia to take a course in Russian and for those who take interest in Russian programs, regardless of their having any Russian roots. Thirdly, direct work with the existing programs at all levels is necessary – be it a school, a university, or a postgraduate school – in order to encourage the learning of Russian. Fourthly, and this seems particularly important, measures need to be taken to stimulate the employment of graduates from the Russian programs of the US universities, to create preferential terms for them, including information on job openings, generation of a database on Russian-speaking specialists and offering them help in establishing contacts with Russian companies operating in the
West and Western companies represented in Russia. In a highly competitive American labor market it will be very difficult to attract strong students to Russian language programs given the lack of clear employment opportunities.
Andrei Korobkov
