Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
torically had been democratic. Scholarship in Ukraine under the Soviets was hem med in by ideological as well as by provincial strictures. As in the rest of the USSR, scholars were provided with opportunities and amenities if they did not overstep the boundaries set up by the regime. Although some of the censorship was self-imposed, control over the humani ties was quite stringent. Changing interpretations of Marxist ideology always included the stricture that Rus sia should serve as the model and measure of Ukraine’s cultural development. Ukraine’s current studies resem ble geological excavations, digging through layers of permissible secondary interpretations through accessi ble archival material until one reaches the sources at the heart of the matter. It was therefore with some excitement that I became part of the review committee in the defense of a disser tation on the revolutionary events of 1919 that dealt with Bolshevik policies towards Ukraine. The dissertation, based on primary source material only recently opened to scholars, was crisp and thorough, though limited in scope. Even so it was eons passed for scholarship fewer than ten years ago. The candidate worked on his own; the mentor’s role was a formality. Many scholars use the opportunity of the new free dom of expression not so much for research, as to expound on their views of the world, humanities, pro gress, democracy, and the role of Ukraine and its intel ligentsia. Daily newspapers, in good Eastern European tradition, are full of editorial comment. There are few female by-lines — the women are busy hunting for goods, growing and canning food, and in general main taining the households along with performing their pro fessional duties. Although I had done a history series broadcast on Voice of America and Radio Liberty and my publications have appeared in both languages, there was some confusion when I showed up at the history faculty of the university; I somehow did not fit the mold of the full professor. It did not occur to me to unearth the dean’s letter naming me full professor that more than a decade ago had given me such great pride. The dean of history and I began a bantering conversation, I quoting abstruse poetry and even more abstruse philo sophy, and with that my place was assured. The rank determined my salary, but nothing pre pared me for the manner of receiving the money. In the middle of one of my lectures the student assistant of the department arrived with a box full of local currency, a list of all departmental faculty with their salaries, a pen cil to check off that I received my pay. In full view of the students my monthly salary was counted out (it was more than ten times larger than the largest scholarship stipend, but it hardly lasted a week, and averaged out between twenty dollars and thirty dollars on the semile gal black market.) When I mentioned the awkwardness of the procedure, the vice chairman began delivering the money to my apartment. She added homemade pre serves, concerned that my living alone was not condu cive to proper eating habits. Her example was followed by other colleagues who delivered items to which they had access — potatoes, potent spirits (homemade to chase away the cold), pickled cabbage, and the herbal teas they picked. They were concerned that the Ameri can would suffer from shortages in their land; they explained that they were inured to want, and I was not. As it was, they were quite impressed that Americans could cope with the conditions so different from those in the States. What they found most surprising was our willingness to come for an extended stay to their country. Education in Ukraine had been both centralized and Russified. The Ministry of Education, the Academy of Sciences, and the defense ministries ran the schools. The curriculum was highly structured and in the human ities the faculty had to abide by the program decided upon by the ministry and the university officials. Stu dents were accepted into a specific major and there was little provision for electives. Students still take about six lecture courses a semester. Upper division students do take some seminar courses, but compared to the best American colleges, write few original research papers. Many of them explained to me that I, as a scholar, should simply teach them, they had so much to learn. And did I really want to waste my time discussing issues with them that could more effectively be lectured to them? And please, Madame Professor — they had with a great deal of pleasure switched to this old Western form of address rather than the earlier name and patro nymic — we just want to hear you talk. What they wanted to hear most was stories about the United States, and how the young people lived there and what the sys tem of education was. And was it true that the unem ployed received stipends? If so, why would anyone want to work, anyway? Many students wanted to know the cost of education in the USA and the lifestyles of stu dents. They were intrigued to find out how many of our students put themselves through schools with wages earned from part-time jobs. A problem I had with many students in Kiev was a conceptual one. For most of them a historical fact was a historical fact, and issues of interpretation and approach were strange concepts. But they warmed up to the idea of class discussion, and learned quickly the difference between polemics and debate. Had they been given a chance, they would have done well in writing papers. The dean of the history faculty, however, did not think it a good idea for the American to grade his history stu dents, or for the students to be subjected for long to an alien form of instruction. The course, it turned out, had been an elective, so at least one of my suggestions had been followed. To b e co n tin u ed 2 0 "НАШЕ ЖИТТЯ”, ЧЕРВЕНЬ 1994 Видання C оюзу Українок A мерики - перевидано в електронному форматі в 2012 році . A рхів C У A - Ню Йорк , Н . Й . C Ш A.
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
