If you wish to take action, please write to János Áder, President of Hungary, who can still veto the decision in the coming five days: www.keh.hu/messages_to_the_presidents_office

You can also sign this Change.org petition: www.change.org/p/hungarian-national-assembly-save-the-central-european-university.  Support for the university has come from scholars across the world, including 17 Nobel Prize winners.  For a full list of those who have said #IstandwithCEU go here and to declare your support for CEU directly go here.

In Russia, the government contests the qualification standards European University of  St. Petersburg applies to its “instructor-practitioners” — a vaguely defined labor category — and says the school breaks state regulations with the work hours it assigns to these employees.  According to university officials, however, the government has refused to clarify what these standards are.  Last December, Rosobrnadzor briefly suspended European University’s license over the same concerns, but an arbitration court sided with the school.

At that time, the university issued a statement describing the situation:

In July 2016, the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation began a series of inspections of the European University at Saint Petersburg. The basis for the conducting of these inspections was an official complaint by the deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, Vitaly Milonov, to which other citizens’ complaints were added later.

The complaints contained false information (the University has no medical emergency services, scholarships are paid to students in foreign currency cash without any proper record, etc.), and information to be checked by federal regulatory authorities (for example, illegal reconstruction of University building or a violation of education legislation). All of them have been formulated to provide a legitimate reason for unscheduled inspections of EUSP by the prosecutor’s office and other regulatory authorities.

In July-August 2016, the EUSP was visited by eleven regulatory and controlling services. All inspections were unannounced. Some visits occurred more than once, that is, if the authority did not detect violations on first inspection, it would come again in 2-3 days with the task of inspecting again. As a result of these actions, the EUSP was either issued orders to eliminate violations or had fines imposed on it. . . . .

Violations that cost EUSP its license are of a formal nature:

• In the opinion of Rosobrnadzor, EUSP Department of Political Science and Sociology lacks the necessary percentage of faculty whose primary occupation is practical work in the field they teach – both in political science and in sociology (two violations)
• Faculty members who work on fixed-term employment contracts, do not have adequate certification
• The University has no gym at its location specified in the license (the University rents one in a different building). (The argument about this fourth violation was rejected by the Dzerzhinsky district court of St. Petersburg on December 5 in connection with recent changes in legislation).

All of these points are based either on a particular interpretation of legal provisions, or on the internal Rosobrnadzor’s assessment of the degree to which their repeated instructions were fulfilled. The University was not aware of the arguments behind these 4 claims until the last moment (the explanatory document by Rosobrnadzor concerning the remaining 4 violations was distributed at the Government meeting on December 9, 2016).

On December 8, at a time when Rosobrnadzor issued an order to suspend the EUSP license, certain publications appeared in the Internet, spreading false and defamatory information about EUSP, University relations with foreign funds, its alleged work against the interests of Russia, etc. This information has nothing to do with the official reason for the suspension of the license. In fact, these publications aim at convincing the public that the regulatory authorities have been used for political purposes, as a tool of pressure on the University and an obstacle to its work.

However, in trying to discredit the EUSP, the organizers of this media campaign actually discredit the legitimate work of state authorities, whose task is to ensure the public interest – the safety of buildings, the quality of education, etc.

The inspections were prompted by a complaint against the university by Vitaly Milonov, a St. Petersburg politician known internationally for his role in promoting Russia’s much-maligned law banning “gay propaganda.”  A member of the Russian Parliament, Milonov has said he was passing along complaints of citizens and students, including a complaint about the teaching of gender studies at the university. “I personally find that disgusting, it’s fake studies, and it may well be illegal,” Milonov told The Christian Science Monitor. “But I’m not qualified to judge, so I handed it on to the proper authorities.”

EUSP Rector Oleg Kharkhordin acknowledged that his institution is “the biggest gender studies center in Russia. Most of the textbooks in the last 20 years are written by our professors.”

EUSP is also facing a parallel dispute over its building lease with the city government in St. Petersburg over allegations that it made certain alterations to the palace building it occupies without the approval of the historical commission.

On March 27, two American scholars, William G. Rosenberg of the University of Michigan and Harley Balzer of Georgetown University, President and Vice-President respectively of the Fund for the European University and members of the EUSP Board of Trustees, wrote in a letter to colleagues:

You may have heard from various sources that the European University at St. Petersburg has been fending off a series of legal assaults, apparently motivated by a combination of Russian nationalist sentiment and commercial interests. A court decision last month would suspend the University’s license, but included a one-month delay to permit an appeal. An appeals court has just ruled that further examination of the case is necessary, and should focus on substance rather than technicalities. The next court review is scheduled for April. The University’s license remains valid for now.

Many colleagues have asked what might be done to help the University. In the current environment, direct criticism of court decisions by foreign scholars could be used as evidence confirming that the European University should be viewed as a foreign agent.

But there are at least two things foreign colleagues may do that could help.

• One is to send directly to the University your expressions of support. The University will be able to collect these, post them on its web site, and use them to make a strong case for its international reputation.  Please send the letters to: rectors_office@eu.spb.ru
• The second, and perhaps more important way to help is to encourage your Russian colleagues to speak out in support of the European University. The involvement of the Russian scholarly community was of tremendous importance when the University was threatened by the fire inspectors several years ago. More recently, mobilization by Russian sociologists, including rivals VTsIOM and FOM, played an important role in the Levada Center being removed from the list of “foreign agents.”

Threats to shut down these two prestigious private institutions reflect a growing intolerance for independent thought not unrelated to events here in the U.S. The New York Times reported earlier this month that the election of Donald Trump had emboldeed opponents of Soros in Eastern Europe.  “I wouldn’t want to take this too far, but I’ve noticed a significant darkening of the tone since November 2016,” said Ignatieff. “Before that relations were sunnier; after that they got darker. I think the government has had this in mind for a long time and thinks it’s going to get a green light from certain people.”