education law article 23 b

• Board of Regents
• Business Portal

New York State Education Department

• Commissioner
• USNY Affiliates
• Organization Chart
• Building Tours
• Program Offices
• Rules & Regulations
• Office of Counsel
• Office of State Review
• Freedom of Information (FOIL)
• Governmental Relations
• Adult Education
• Bilingual Education
• Career & Technical Education
• Cultural Education
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Early Learning
• Educator Quality
• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• Graduation Measures
• Higher Education
• High School Equivalency
• Indigenous Education
• My Brother's Keeper

Office of the Professions

• P-12 Education
• Special Education
• Vocational Rehabilitation
• Next Generation Learning Standards: ELA and Math
• Office of Standards and Instruction
• Diploma Requirements
• Teaching in Remote/Hybrid Learning Environments (TRLE)
• Office of State Assessment
• Computer-Based Testing
• Exam Schedules
• Grades 3-8 Tests
• Regents Exams
• New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)
• English as a Second Language Tests
• Test Security
• Teaching Assistants
• Pupil Personnel Services Staff
• School Administrators
• Professionals
• Career Schools
• Fingerprinting
• Accountability
• Audit Services
• Budget Coordination
• Chief Financial Office
• Child Nutrition
• Facilities Planning
• Ed Management Services
• Pupil Transportation Services
• Religious and Independent School Support
• SEDREF Query
• Public Data
• Data Privacy and Security
• Information & Reporting

Student Support Services

• Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)
• Dental Certificates
• FERPA/HIPAA
• Health Screenings
• Immunizations
• Laws and Regulations
• Medications
• Mental Health
• Nonpublic Schools
• Substance Abuse
• Behavioral Supports and Interventions in Schools
• The Dignity for All Students Act (DASA)
• The Safe Schools Against Violence in Education Act (SAVE)
• School Safety and Educational Climate (SSEC)
• Social Emotional Learning (SEL)
• General Program Information
• CREATE application
• Foster Care
• LGBTQ Resources
• ARP ESSER/SCTAS
• Extended Learning Time
• Extended School Day/School Violence Prevention
• Summer School
• Award Recipients
• Laws, Regulations, and Guidance
• Pre-screened External Organizations
• Program Evaluation
• Program Modifications
• Program Resources
• Project Management
• Site Monitoring Visits
• Technical Assistance Resource Centers
• Pupil Personnel Services
• Home Instruction (Home Schooling)
• School Counseling
• Safe Schools and Alternative Education
• Employment of Minors
• SSS Newsletter
• Back to the Safe Schools Against Violence in Education Act (SAVE)
• Codes of Conduct
• Fingerprinting Regulations
• Memos and Guidance
• School Safety Plans
• School Violence Prevention and Intervention

Child Abuse in an Educational Setting

Education Law Article 23-B

Reporting Requirements - This information outlines the required reporting process for allegations of child abuse in an educational setting.

Confidential Report of Allegation of Child Abuse in an Education Setting:

Section 100.2 (hh) of Commissioner's Regulation - Reporting Child Abuse in an Educational Setting

Report Form  - See  Reporting Requirements  above for details on how to use this form.  This form is to be completed by school staff who witness or are made aware of a potential incident of child abuse in an educational setting.  The form is submitted to the superintendent and law enforcement and after the incident has been been investigated by the school or district it is then submitted to the  Office of School Personnel Accountability (OSPRA)  at [email protected] .

Definitions  - This document defines key terms relevant to the reporting requirements and completing the report, as outlined in Education Law Article 23-B.

Get the Latest Updates!

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the New York State Education Department.

Popular Topics

• Charter Schools
• High School Equivalency Test
• Next Generation Learning Standards
• Professional Licenses & Certification
• Reports & Data
• School Climate
• School Report Cards
• Teacher Certification
• Vocational Services
• Find a school report card
• Find assessment results
• Find high school graduation rates
• Find information about grants
• Get information about learning standards
• Get information about my teacher certification
• Obtain vocational services
• Serve legal papers
• Verify a licensed professional
• File an appeal to the Commissioner

Quick Links

• About the New York State Education Department
• About the University of the State of New York (USNY)
• Business Portal for School Administrators
• Employment Opportunities
• FOIL (Freedom of Information Law)
• Incorporation for Education Corporations
• NYS Archives
• NYS Library
• NYSED Online Services
• Public Broadcasting

Media Center

• Newsletters
• Video Gallery
• X (Formerly Twitter)

New York State Education Building

89 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12234

CONTACT US  

NYSED General Information: (518) 474-3852

ACCES-VR: 1-800-222-JOBS (5627)

High School Equivalency: (518) 474-5906

New York State Archives: (518) 474-6926

New York State Library: (518) 474-5355

New York State Museum: (518) 474-5877

Office of Higher Education: (518) 486-3633

Office of the Professions: (518) 474-3817

P-12 Education: (518) 474-3862

EMAIL CONTACTS  

Adult Education & Vocational Services 

New York State Archives 

New York State Library 

New York State Museum 

Office of Higher Education 

Office of Education Policy (P-20)

© 2015 - 2024 New York State Education Department

Diversity & Access | Accessibility | Internet Privacy Policy | Disclaimer  |  Terms of Use  

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

2022 New York Laws EDN - Education Title 1 - General Provisions Article 23-B - Child Abuse in an Educational Setting 1125 - Definitions.

§ 1125. Definitions. For the purposes of this article the following terms shall have the following meanings:

1. "Child abuse" shall mean any of the following acts committed in an educational setting by an employee or volunteer against a child: (a) intentionally or recklessly inflicting physical injury, serious physical injury or death, or (b) intentionally or recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of such physical injury, serious physical injury or death, or (c) any child sexual abuse as defined in this section, or (d) the commission or attempted commission against a child of the crime of disseminating indecent materials to minors pursuant to article two hundred thirty-five of the penal law.

2. "Child" shall mean a person under the age of twenty-one years enrolled in a school.

3. "Employee" shall mean any person: (i) who is receiving compensation from a school or (ii) whose duties involve direct student contact and (a) who is receiving compensation from any person or entity that contracts with a school to provide transportation services to children, or (b) who is an employee of a contracted service provider or worker placed within the school under a public assistance employment program, pursuant to title nine-B of article five of the social services law, and consistent with the provisions of such title for the provision of services to such school, its students or employees, directly or through contract.

4. "Volunteer" shall mean any person, other than an employee, who has direct student contact and: (i) provides services to a school, or (ii) provides services to any person or entity that contracts with a school to provide transportation services to children.

5. "Educational setting" shall mean the building and grounds of a school, the vehicles provided directly or by contract by the school for the transportation of students to and from school buildings, field trips, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities both on and off school grounds, all co-curricular and extra-curricular activity sites, and any other location where direct contact between an employee or volunteer and a child has allegedly occurred.

6. "Administrator" or "school administrator" shall mean a principal, or the equivalent title, in a school, or other chief school officer.

7. "Law enforcement authorities" shall mean a municipal police department, sheriff's department, the division of state police or any officer thereof. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement authorities shall not include any child protective service or any society for the prevention of cruelty to children as such terms are defined in section four hundred twenty-three of the social services law.

8. "Parent" shall mean either or both of a child's parents or other persons legally responsible for the child.

9. "Child sexual abuse" shall mean conduct prohibited by article one hundred thirty or two hundred sixty-three of the penal law.

10. "School" shall include a school district, public school, charter school, nonpublic school, board of cooperative educational services, special act school district as defined in section four thousand one of this chapter, approved preschool special education program pursuant to section forty-four hundred ten of this chapter, approved private residential or non-residential school for the education of students with disabilities including private schools established under chapter eight hundred fifty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred seventy-six, or state-operated or state-supported school in accordance with article eighty-five, eighty-seven or eighty-eight of this chapter.

Get free summaries of new opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

New York Education Law Article 23-B - CHILD ABUSE IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING

• 1125 - Definitions. For the purposes of this article the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1. "Child abuse" shall mean any of the following acts committed...
• 1126 - Duties of Employees Specifically Enumerated in This Section Upon Receipt of an Allegation of Child Abuse in an Educational Setting. 1. In any case where an oral or written allegation is made to a teacher, school nurse, school guidance counselor, school psychologist, school social worker,...
• 1127 - Confidentiality of Records. Reports and other written material submitted pursuant to this article, and photographs taken concerning such reports in the possession of any person authorized to receive...
• 1128 - Duties of School Administrators and Superintendents Upon Receipt of a Written Report Alleging Child Abuse in an Educational Setting. Upon receipt of a written report described in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section eleven hundred twenty-six of this article alleging that a child...
• 1128-a - Additional Duties of Superintendents. 1. Where a superintendent of schools forwards to law enforcement a report as described in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section eleven hundred twenty-six...
• 1129 - Penalties for Failure to Comply. 1. Willful failure of an employee to prepare and submit a written report of an allegation of child abuse as required by this article shall...
• 1130 - Notification by District Attorney. Where a criminal investigation of an allegation of child abuse by an employee or volunteer is undertaken in response to a report forwarded by a...
• 1131 - Actions Upon Criminal Conviction of a Licensed or Certified School Employee. 1. In the event that a licensed or certified school employee against whom an allegation of child abuse in an educational setting has been made,...
• 1132 - Duties of the Commissioner; Child Abuse in an Educational Setting. 1. The commissioner shall prepare a form for the recording and transmitting of allegations of child abuse in an educational setting. Such form shall include:...
• 1133 - Unreported Resignation Against Public Policy. 1. A school administrator or superintendent shall not make any agreement to withhold from law enforcement authorities, the superintendent or the commissioner, where appropriate, the...

Last modified: February 3, 2019

Amendments to state law affect reporting of child abuse in an educational setting

User Rating:  5  /  5

What happens when the school receives a report from a parent that the bus driver slapped the face of a nine-year old student with a disability? Some of you may recall the headlines from earlier this year involving such a case. In Matter of Ansley v. Jamesville-DeWitt CSD , the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court considered the power of a school district to take action pursuant to Article 23-b of the Education Law. Enacted in 2001 as part of the Project SAVE legislation, Article 23-b makes it mandatory for school employees and school board members to report child abuse in an educational setting. School officials should be familiar with Article 23-b and expanded protections for children under a recent revision of this law. A report made in accordance with Article 23-b must be in writing and made to the building administrator in the building where the abuse occurred. The building administrator must then conduct an investigation and make a determination as to whether there is reasonable suspicion that child abuse did occur and, if so, must contact the parents and the authorities. For purposes of Article 23-b, “child abuse” is defined as acts committed in school or at a school function by an employee or volunteer against a child which inflict personal injury, create a substantial risk of injury, constitute child sex abuse, or involve disseminating indecent materials to minors. The term “school employee” means anyone who is receiving compensation from a school, or whose duties involve direct student contact who is a contractor or employee of a contractor with the school. Recent legislative changes define “student” as anyone under 21 years of age attending a school. Students in nonpublic schools, BOCES, state-funded schools, and charter schools are now covered. (Special Act schools are not covered by this article because they have their own protections found in Article 11 of the Social Services Law.) The revised Article 23-b mandates reporting of child abuse when it occurs in a school where the student does not attend. For example, if a visiting athletic director observes the home team coach slap a home team player, the visiting athletic director has an obligation to make a report of child abuse to the building administrator where the child abuse occurred. Similarly, if a home team coach observes a visiting coach slap a visiting player, the home team coach has an obligation to make a report of child abuse to the building administrator where the abuse occurred. Also, the list of mandated reporters has grown. Effective June 5, 2019, mandated reporters under Article 23-b include any teacher, school nurse, guidance counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, administrator, school board member or other certificated or licensed personnel including physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech language pathologist, teacher aide or school resource officer and bus drivers employed by transportation contractors. Mandated reporters are legally  required to make reports even in  situations where the student or parent  does not want the incident reported.  In fact, a failure to report could be considered child abuse in and of itself. For example, suppose a coach becomes aware of severe hazing of younger students by older students. If the coach permits the conduct to continue, the principal or superintendent would be obligated upon learning this to file a Part 83 complaint with the commissioner of education to trigger an investigation of child abuse in an educational setting. Mandated reporters have immunity from liability for reporting child abuse in an educational setting as long as they reported it in good faith. Reporting forms can be found at http://www. p12.nysed.gov/sss/ssae/schoolsafety/save/#childabuse . A school employee or board member who receives a verbal report of alleged abuse but did not witness it must file a written report with the administrator of the building where the abuse is alleged to have occurred, or the superintendent. The building administrator must promptly provide a copy of the report to the superintendent. Then the administrator or the superintendent must conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is reasonable suspicion that the alleged child abuse occurred. The first step is to gather all staff members who interact with the child and ask for any relevant information or observations in light of the allegation. If the preliminary investigation results in a reasonable suspicion to believe that child abuse occurred, the child’s parent must be notified of the report and given a copy of the statement of parental rights, and law enforcement should be promptly contacted. If the school employee suspected of abuse is certificated or licensed, the superintendent also has a legal obligation to forward the report to the commissioner of education pursuant to Part 83 of the Commissioner’s Regulations. Two common mistakes should be avoided:

• After alerting police, don’t complicate matters by conducting any further school inquiry or investigation. School administrators should contact the school attorney for assistance in understanding the school’s role in coordination with police investigations.
• File the paperwork. It is easy for school administrators to be caught up in personnel issues and overlook the paperwork requirements of Article 23-b. The failure to file a report of abuse is a class A misdemeanor. The willful failure of a school administrator or superintendent to submit a written report of child abuse in the educational setting to appropriate law enforcement is also a class A misdemeanor. Education Law 1129 also provides for civil penalties not to exceed $5,000.

Once law enforcement has the district’s report, it is the responsibility of the county district attorney to notify the school where the student attends and the school where the abuse occurred, if different, when the employee or volunteer has been indicted or otherwise charged. Further, once the criminal case has concluded either through a trial or a plea, the D.A. must notify the school and the commissioner of education of the disposition of the charges. The commissioner must make a determination “whether the individual possesses good moral character” and what penalties, if any, need to be assessed against the individual’s license or certificate. Prior to 2001, school districts may have sought to resolve a report of child abuse by telling the employee that the superintendent will not report the abuse if the employee resigns immediately. This is known as a silent resignation and is expressly prohibited by Article 23-b. An administrator who accepts a silent resignation will be subject to a class E felony and up to $20,000 in civil penalties. In addition to the reporting responsibilities, there are record-keeping responsibilities. Records relating to the report of child abuse in the educational setting must be kept confidential and only disclosed to law enforcement personnel or in situations where the law requires release of the information. How long should records be kept? Two laws should be considered – Article 23-b and the Child Victim’s Act. The former requires reports of child abuse, both founded and unfounded, to be kept in a confidential file for five years. All reports that do not result in a criminal conviction must be expunged after five years. The fact that the statute requires expungement may compromise a district’s ability to mount a defense if it issued under the Child Victims Act, which has the statute of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse for one year and, going forward, permits victims to sue until the age of 55. One of the other recent changes to Article 23-b is an enhanced training requirement. Education Law section1132 now requires all personnel of schools, BOCES, nonpublic schools, charter schools or other schools to receive annual training in identifying and reporting child abuse in the educational setting. School board members should be included in the training as they now have reporting requirements. Districts should maintain records of training as well as the reports of abuse because proof of training could assist in the defense of a Child Victims Act claim. One final area of possible mistake involves training. An employee may be absent on the day the training is given. The district should have a system in place for ensuring such an employee does not “fall through the cracks.” All employees must complete the training annually. The rules contained within Article 23-b are complicated but they are designed to help schools keep children safe. Questions about Article 23-b and its procedures should be directed to the school attorney. If the bus driver’s actions in the Ansley case discussed in the first paragraph had been reported as child abuse in the educational setting, litigation may have been avoided. Members of the New York State Association of School Attorneys represent school boards and school districts. This article was written by Wendy K. DeWind of Hogan, Sarzynski, Lynch, DeWind & Gregory, LLP. DeWind

NYSASA ListServ

President's Message

Member Login

• Forgot your username?
• Forgot your password?

Child Abuse Redefined to Include Corporal Punishment Under Article 23-B

[co-author: Christopher Cruz-Sierra]*

On Oct. 25, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill S05261/Assembly Bill A05010, amending the definition of child abuse under Article 23-B, § 1125(1). The definition of child abuse now includes corporal punishment as defined by the Commissioner of Education. This change effectively means that all schools in New York, whether public or nonpublic, are prohibited from utilizing corporal punishment.

This amendment is a response to various accounts of private schools in the state employing corporal punishment. The legislature found that males, young persons of color and students diagnosed with a disability are disproportionately more likely to be the victims of corporal punishment by school staff. Additionally, the legislature believes that corporal punishment violates students' rights to safety, bodily integrity, due process and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

The signed law also amended Education Law § 305 under Article 7, requiring the Commissioner of Education to promulgate rules and regulations prohibiting teachers, administrators, officers, employees or agents of any school in New York from using corporal punishment.

It is worth noting that there is a directive from the Commissioner of Education on this issue. In July 2023, 8 NYCRR 19.5 was amended to prohibit all school staff from using corporal punishment. This amendment became effective on Aug. 2, 2023. The amended regulation defines corporal punishment as any act of physical force upon a student to punish that student. Corporal punishment does not include the use of physical restraints to protect a student, teacher or any other person from physical injury when alternative procedures and methods not involving the use of physical restraint cannot reasonably be employed to achieve these purposes.

As such, we recommend that all school districts and schools—public and nonpublic—revise their corporal punishment policy to ensure alignment with the new laws and regulations.

*Special thanks to Associate Trainee Christopher Cruz-Sierra for his assistance in the preparation of this memo. Christopher is not yet admitted to practice law

[ View source .]

Latest Posts

• Tackling Cyber Risks in the Manufacturing Industry
• New Submission Details for Articles 129-A and 129-B Decennial Reporting
• Navigating Compliance with OCR’s New Guidance on Title VI
• EEOC Publishes New Guidance on Workplace Harassment for the First Time in Twenty Years
• Enacted Budget Makes Major Changes to Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program

See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

Refine your interests »

Written by:

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

• Increased visibility
• Actionable analytics
• Ongoing guidance

Published In:

Bond schoeneck & king pllc on:.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Watch CBS News

Biden administration cancels $7.7 billion in student debt for 160,500 people. Here's who qualifies.

By Aimee Picchi

Edited By Anne Marie Lee

Updated on: May 23, 2024 / 11:38 AM EDT / CBS News

The White House on Wednesday said it has approved $7.7 billion of student debt cancellation for 160,500 borrowers, part of its ongoing effort to provide relief after the Supreme Court last year  blocked  President Joe Biden's plan for broad-based college loan forgiveness. 

With the latest round of forgiveness, the administration has erased a total of $167 billion in student loans for 4.75 million people, or about 1 in 10 student loan borrowers, the Department of Education said. 

The people who qualify for forgiveness in the latest round of debt cancellation include public servants such as teachers and law enforcement officers, as well as tens of thousands of people who have signed up for Biden's new loan repayment program , called SAVE. That program, created last year, pegs a borrower's monthly payment to their income, lowering their financial payments, and is designed to fix a pitfall of earlier repayment programs that allowed interest to snowball.

"One out of every 10 federal student loan borrowers approved for debt relief means one out of every 10 borrowers now has financial breathing room and a burden lifted," U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in the statement. 

Concerns about the cost of college are on the rise, with about half of Americans saying college is worth the money only if you don't have to go into debt, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis . And only about 1 in 5 Gen Z college grads say their diploma was worth the investment, compared with more than half of baby boomers, MassMutual found  in a new survey.

Here's what to know about the latest round of forgiveness. 

Who qualifies for loan forgiveness?

The Biden administration said there are three groups of borrowers who have been approved for forgiveness in the latest round.

• 66,900 borrowers will have $5.2 billion forgiven through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is designed to help public servants such as teachers, nurses and law enforcement officers get their debt canceled after 10 years of repayments. 
• 54,300 borrowers will have $613 million forgiven through the SAVE plan. 
• Another 39,200 borrowers will have $1.9 billion forgiven through adjustments to their income-driven repayment plans. These plans were sometimes mismanaged by loan servicers, which made it more difficult for some borrowers to achieve forgiveness. 

How will I know if I qualify for forgiveness?

The Biden administration said that people who qualify under this latest round of debt cancellation will get an email about their approval. 

The debt cancellation will then be processed in the next few weeks, it added. 

Will Biden offer more student loan forgiveness? 

Yes, because the Biden administration is working on a new effort to provide broad-based loan forgiveness through the Higher Education Act. 

The new plan could provide relief to about 30 million borrowers, either erasing some or all of their college loans. 

The Biden administration on Wednesday said the public comment period on the new regulation closed on May 17, with the Department of Education now reviewing the thousands of comments it received. 

"Our goal is to publish a final rule that results in delivering relief this fall," the Education Department said in the Wednesday statement. 

How can borrowers sign up for SAVE? 

The SAVE plan is open for enrollment here .

The income-drive repayment plan bases monthly payments on income and family size, with some lower-income households with more family members paying little to nothing each month. For instance, a family of four with less than $50,000 in annual income would have monthly payments of $0. 

Another benefit to the program is that it eliminates snowballing interest. In previous plans, borrowers sometimes saw their balances grow if their monthly payments didn't cover all their interest, a financial situation called "negative amortization." That's why some borrowers may have left college with, say, $20,000 in debt but ended up with much larger balances even after years of repayment.

• Biden Administration
• Student Debt

Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.

More from CBS News

Biden administration cancels more student loan debt: What to do if you don't qualify

Debt consolidation loans vs. debt management programs: Here's how to choose

Virginia tech company admonished for "Whites only" job posting

Why you should consolidate your debt for June

May 23, 2024

VCU special education major connects life, school, work and a passion to serve others with disabilities

In addition to his studies, Chad Lowery works at a local law firm that shares his perspective – and the vision of VCU’s Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Share this story.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

By Lucian Friel

As Chad Lowery continues his undergraduate studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, he also is finding his way in the working world – and proving a point.

“You need to really know a person as they are,” he said, “instead of what they look like.”

Lowery, who has cerebral palsy, is a student in VCU’s School of Education , majoring in special education. He also is a legal assistant at a local law firm specializing in disability rights and advocacy – a position he secured through VCU’s Rehabilitation Research and Training Center .

“I have a passion for helping other individuals with disabilities,” Lowery said. “I feel like people – or society, rather – doesn’t expect individuals like myself to have the desire of having a job, going to school, having a career, having a family someday. And I think RRTC is a good resource to show society you can’t judge a book by its cover.”

After graduating from high school in Chesterfield County in 2018, Lowery joined the RRTC’s Business Connections program the following year. Specialists with the supported employment service provider help Richmond-area clients with disabilities in finding competitive, integrated employment in the community and provide ongoing support.

Mallary McEvoy , an RRTC employment specialist, met regularly with Lowery to review his strengths and interests, such as advocacy for disability rights, supported employment and special education, as well as a chance to work with individuals with disabilities. And she helped highlight his potential as a job candidate, which included previous work experience as a communications and data assistant.

“We were able to create, through the support of his job coaches here, a visual résumé that played into his strengths,” McEvoy said. “One of those things was that Chad had some really awesome artwork. He had a modeling gig at one point, and we were able to put some of those modeling pictures on his visual résumé and just allow that alternative format to show Chad as a whole person. That person-centered approach helped him build confidence but also stick out as a candidate.”

The approach highlighted Lowery’s communication, computer and technology abilities, plus his strong personality, friendly demeanor, and outgoing and collaborative approach to work.

“And from the start at BeneCounsel , Matt saw possibility instead of disability for Chad,” McEvoy said.

Matt Bellinger had started BeneCounsel in 2014. The Richmond law firm, which specializes in disability benefits and legal services such as guardianships and powers of attorney, developed from personal experience: the barriers and difficulties of navigating disability benefits for his child.

“I was trying to figure out Medicaid waiver services, getting really confused, threw my pen down and literally thought to myself, ‘You’d have to quit your job and do this full time to figure it out’ – and I was an attorney,” Bellinger said. “That’s where the lightbulb went off. If I need help, so do other parents.”

In 2022, as the firm’s caseload had grown, he began searching for legal assistants. He decided to hire individuals with disabilities.

“I was thinking, I could go the standard route and hire a paralegal. But then I started thinking, well, that’s typically how you would do it, but is that really what I should do?” Bellinger said. “Why don’t I hire a person with a disability, because that’s who I serve? The more I thought about that, the idea grew, so that’s what we did.”

Bellinger was familiar with VCU’s RRTC through a family member who had used its Business Connections program. He sent the job description and application process to a number of organizations, and Lowery was among the applicants. Bellinger hired him in 2023 – and has high praise for his colleague.

“Chad is super focused,” Bellinger said. “Chad does all of our guardianship documents. Chad writes the powers of attorney and recently started doing trusts and wills. So it’s not just clerical work. We’re ahead on guardianship cases. Chad is doing the work.” 

Lowery relishes the connection that develop through his work.

“I really like collaborating with our clients or just people,” Lowery said.  “I’m very interpersonal. I like building relationships and expanding my network of people.”

Lowery uses assistive technology in his everyday work. A joystick and Bluetooth connection from his wheelchair allow him to use a dwell clicker to highlight part of a computer screen and click on items. A screen-based keyboard with some word prediction helps him type more efficiently. Lowery played a key role in establishing what technology he would need to be successful.

“He’s really on top of it with his tech, and he was able to self-advocate and say, ‘Here’s what I need, here’s what I don’t need,’” McEvoy said. “His employer was super involved in the process, which made it so much more helpful because Matt, from the start, was willing to be a part of that conversation rather than just be told what to do.”

Bellinger’s engagement on such issues reflect a big-picture perspective he brings to his work and his colleagues.

“The benefits to my organization, and I think any organization that successfully hires persons with disabilities, is that you become a better organization,” Bellinger said. “In order for it to work, you really have to focus on the employees – what are their needs, anticipate the accommodations they may need – and that has a carry-over effect on your other employees, too. If you’re focusing on your employees with disabilities to make them successful, you’re also going to be focusing on your employees without disabilities to make them successful.”

Lowery added, “I may have a disability and I may need accommodations, but it doesn’t mean you have to change the whole process and protocol or the job description. I want to normalize individuals with disabilities [being employed].”

As he continues his education at VCU and his work at BeneCounsel, Lowery looks forward to a future framed by helping others with disabilities.

“I want to do something in the area of special education,” he said. “It could be a teacher, it could be a college professor, but I know that I want to be a voice of the community.”

Subscribe to VCU News

Subscribe to VCU News at newsletter.vcu.edu and receive a selection of stories, videos, photos, news clips and event listings in your inbox.

Related stories

Class of 2024: Erin Norwood hopes to make more space for disability in health care

VCU researcher makes the case for improving employment for people with disabilities

Path to employment was rewarding work for VCU program graduate with a disability

Most popular

May 15, 2024

Graduation Scenes

May 11, 2024

‘The world needs your music,’ Gov. Glenn Youngkin tells VCU’s Class of 2024

10 innovative research projects earn latest funding from VCU’s Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Fund

May 14, 2024

Class of 2024: Model student, military veteran and mom Thomasine Isler walked a long path to graduation

Latest headlines

May 22, 2024

Class of 2024: Briona Phillips brings life experience to her exploration of dental care and equity

Global study on forgiveness was rooted in the work of VCU professor emeritus Everett Worthington

May 21, 2024

Class of 2024: After completing the human genetics certificate program, Alanna Varca Gentile is translating personal experience to practice

Find your Senator and share your views on important issues.

Legislation

Search openlegislation statutes.

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

Linguistic Rights and Education in the Republics of the Russian Federation: Towards Unity through Uniformity

This article traces the evolution of the debate on the balancing of federal and regional competences in regulating the use of minority languages in Russia’s education system. Taking into account relevant law and judicial practice, as well as developments in center-periphery relations since 2017, the article argues that the federal center has been increasingly depriving Russia’s republics of the ability to self-regulate in the education sphere – particularly over the question as to whether they may require the compulsory study of republican languages (recognized as co-official with Russian) in schools located within their administrative borders. These processes can be located in the context of the centralization of the education system and a corresponding reduction of multilingualism in Russia’s schools. This can, in turn, be seen as part of an underlying drive to promote national unity through uniformity, through the dilution of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity and a concurrent emphasis on the primacy of the Russian language. The article further argues that the Russian education system’s centralization has been ongoing: while it has intensified since 2017, the trajectory of the jurisprudence shows an earlier movement towards a concern for ‘unity’ that anticipated it.

Linguistic policy in the Russian Federation’s education system, particularly relating to the teaching of languages recognized as official at the level of its republics, has long been a subject of debate. The issue has sparked disagreements on the balancing between federal and regional competences in regulating the use of languages in education, as well as revealing a tension between Russia’s linguistic diversity and the ( de jure and de facto ) dominance of Russian as the state language of the Federation. The latest manifestation of this debate has centered around renewed frictions on the question as to whether Russia’s republics may impose an obligation to study languages recognized as co-official with Russian in schools located within their administrative borders. The ensuing disputes have become so severe as to lead to mass prosecutorial inspections of Russia’s republics in 2017.

The inspections were triggered by a speech given by President Vladimir Putin on 20 June 2017, at a meeting of the Council on Inter-ethnic Relations in Yoshkar-Ola (in Russia’s Republic of Mari El). 1 The speech was partially devoted to language rights: it was stated, inter alia , that in no case can the time allocated to the study of Russian be reduced in the republics’ schools, and nobody should be forced to study a language that is not native to them. Prosecutorial inspections 2 aimed at establishing whether or not the study of republican languages was voluntary; indeed, the position of the Prosecutor General’s Office – which mirrors Putin’s – has been that the compulsory study of these languages amounts to interference in (federal-level) processes of devising education programs, as well as violating the right of individuals to choose their language of instruction. In reality, this position contradicts principles found in a series of judgments by the Russian higher courts, which have held the compulsory study of republican languages (in the republics themselves) compatible with federal legislation. 3 The inspections triggered tensions between actors on both sides of the debate, with, on the one hand, demonstrations in the republics and public statements by the regional authorities protesting against these developments, and, on the other, support for the position of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The debate was brought to a halt in mid-2018, as the Russian State Duma adopted amendments to the Federal Law on Education. The amendments effectively blocked the option for the republics to require the compulsory study of regional languages, while also strengthening the role of the Russian language.

In this article we trace the evolution of the debate on the study of regional languages in Russia’s ethnic republics. The article is divided into two main sections. In the first part, following a brief introduction of Russia’s history of multilingualism and diversity management, we outline federal legislation on regional-language education, as well as recent developments linked to the language dispute sparked by Putin’s speech in Yoshkar-Ola. Second, we consider cases from the Russian courts on the compulsory study of regional languages, highlighting principles that can be drawn from the jurisprudence. We argue that the federal center has been increasingly depriving the republics of the ability to self-regulate in the use of minority languages in the education system. These dynamics can be located in the context of the centralization of the education system and a corresponding reduction of multilingualism in Russia’s schools. This can, in turn, be seen as part of an underlying drive to promote national unity through uniformity, in the sense of dilution of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity and concurrent emphasis on the primacy of the Russian language as a “unifying factor” 4 for the citizenry as a whole. We further argue that the education system’s centralization has been ongoing: while its clearest manifestation thus far has been the events since 2017, the trajectory of jurisprudence has also reflected a trend towards unity and uniformity, in disregard of earlier judicial practice.

1 Languages in the Education System: Law and Practice

According to data from the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, individuals belonging to more than 160 ethnic groups live in Russia, while their languages belong to 14 language families. 5 In total approximately 180 languages and dialects are spoken in the country. Not all these languages are employed in official channels: some of them are, rather, endangered languages, whose use is confined to small villages, and which only count a few dozen speakers. There are grounds to believe that in the near future these languages will disappear. 6

A useful indicator in assessing the number of languages actively employed in Russia is the use of languages on the Internet. In the study “Languages on the Internet”, conducted by Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, researchers analyzed what languages are employed in the Russian segment of the Internet to publish articles and to post information. The study revealed that 96 languages are used, 7 demonstrating that the country’s linguistic diversity is considerable. 8

• 1.1 Russia’s Multilingualism

Multilingualism has been a constant feature of Russian history. As the Russian empire annexed new territories, it also incorporated a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional population, speaking a myriad of languages. While waves of Russification took place, these policies were selectively applied, with some ethnic groups retaining a degree of local or regional autonomy, including in cultural and linguistic matters. 9 Faced with the same ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity, the Bolsheviks sought to devise policies that would manage it, so as to contain nationalist impulses while incorporating highly diverse communities into the Communist project. Among the main features of Soviet nationalities policy was ethno-territorial federalism – by which territories were nominally assigned to the main ethnic groups. 10 These territorial arrangements 11 have been preserved to this day: currently the Russian Federation comprises 83 ‘subjects’ (federal constituent units) (85 with the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol). The subjects include 21 republics, 12 which are generally referred to as ‘ethnic republics’ 13 in light of the (one or more) titular nationalities after which they are named.

Alongside ethnic federalism, Soviet nationalities policy introduced programs promoting linguistic and cultural diversity, including through language policies and education in multiple languages. 14 Meanwhile, the regions were administered through local elites (recruited into the Communist Party) via the process of korenizatsiya (indigenization). What the Soviet Union created has been described as “the most ambitious affirmative action programme in history”; 15 however, the use of minority languages (and minority-language education) was reduced from the 1930s onwards, while the use of Russian as the language of inter-ethnic communication increased. New policies emphasized the importance of Russian in the unification of the Soviet people and the country’s modernization – as well as becoming a prerequisite for social mobility. 16 These policies resulted in a decline of national schools, and a tendency to confine the use of minority languages to non-urban areas. 17

Ethnic federalism, korenizatsiya and ethnic institutions effectively created the conditions for ethnic mobilization during perestroika and the 1990s. 18 This period saw the revival of minority (particularly titular) languages, as a fundamental aspect of non-Russian groups’ nationalist projects. Access to titular-language education was greatly enhanced in some republics, particularly Tatarstan. 19 Ethnic revival was accompanied by decentralization under Yeltsin – processes for the most part reversed since the 2000s, through Putin’s emphasis on political centralization and state consolidation. 20 Among the consequences of Putin’s policies has been a form of cultural homogenization (the tendency towards ‘uniformity’ referred to in this article), through the primacy of the Russian language, culture and symbols. 21

[T]he teaching and learning in and of minority languages is on the whole diminishing. […] [I]n general teaching in the minority language was scarce after primary school. Moreover, information […] indicates a decrease in the number of schools where minority languages are taught or used a medium of instruction, of the hours dedicated to teaching minority languages, and changes in their status from compulsory to optional or extra-curricular. 23

A range of studies have similarly supplied evidence on the generalized decrease in minority-language education. 24 Overall, the presence of regional languages in Russia’s education system has been found to be insufficient to assure inter-generational transmission. 25 In particular, the fact that teaching in minority languages is scarce after primary school is problematic: as the acfc has stressed, in order to develop minority-language skills “there must be continuity in access to teaching and learning of and in minority languages at all levels of the education system, from pre-school to higher education.” 26 [italics added].

Not only have these developments created a weak system of minority-language education but they have also resulted in an ongoing (and intensifying) tension between knowledge of Russian as the state language for the whole country (as a “unifying factor” for its population), and Russia’s multilingual environment. Centralization – particularly recent developments described in this article – has ultimately tipped the balance towards increased uniformity.

• 1.2 Legal Provisions

The principal legal provisions relating to language rights in the education sphere are included in federal legislation. In particular, Article 68(1) of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation (hereinafter ‘the Constitution’) stipulates that Russian is the state language for the entire country. The state language is employed in the administration, the judiciary, the media and in various other spheres. 27 In education the status of the state language is reaffirmed by the right to receive an education in Russian in public schools, which is held by every resident in the country as laid down in the 2005 Federal Law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation”, 28 and the 2012 Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation” 29 (hereinafter ‘Law on Education’ 30 ). At the same time, education may also take place in other languages – an option enabled by several factors. First, the Constitution foresees the right to choose the language of instruction and the right to use one’s native language (Article 26(2)). 31 Second, education- and language-related legislation does not specify that schools should employ exclusively Russian. Third, the Constitution enshrines a prohibition of discrimination, including on linguistic grounds (Article 19(2)), 32 while also guaranteeing the preservation of the languages spoken in Russia (Article 68(3)). 33

Besides “state language”, Russian legislation contains the expression “native language”. However, in the regulation of linguistic rights, a more common expression is “languages of the peoples [ narody ] of the Russian Federation”, in accordance with the lex specialis regulating language matters, namely the Federal Law “On the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation”. 34 This law stipulates the equality of languages (Article 2(1)), along with the option to use languages other than Russian in the administration of designated regions, where their speakers reside compactly (Article 3(4)).

Clearly not in all cases can linguistic diversity be supported through the education system, given its finite resources. Consequently, the legislation states that the right to choose the language of education is to be realized “within the limits of the opportunities provided by the education system”. 35 Thus, in practice, despite the legal right to choose the language of instruction, the state does not guarantee the right for every student to attend a school where instruction is provided in their native language, or where such a language is taught. If a region is equipped with the means and personnel to realize a policy of linguistic diversity in line with local demand, its schools will use as the language of instruction – or teach – one of the languages of the peoples of Russia (alongside Russian); yet, if resources are unavailable, instruction can only take place in Russian.

Federal legislation also regulates the “state languages of the republics”: 36 these may be declared official by the republican organs pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Constitution. They are recognized as state languages of the republics as opposed to Russian as the state language (for the country in its entirety); they are also referred to interchangeably in this article as ‘a republic’s official languages’, ‘republican languages’ or ‘regional languages’. Nearly all of Russia’s ethnic republics – the Republic of Karelia being the exception – have established their own official languages. The state language of a republic constitutes an aspect of the republic’s public policy, and a manifestation of its sovereignty. The languages in question are afforded special status in republican legislation and they may be employed alongside Russian within the republics, in spheres such as communication with administrative authorities, publication of official documents, provision of services by state institutions, media activity, and websites of state organs. One should note that the republican languages are more numerous than the republics themselves, given that some republics have assigned a special status to more than one language. The cases in question are: Karachay-Cherkessia (5 languages), Kabardino-Balkaria (2), Mordovia (2), and Dagestan, where the exact number of state languages remains undefined. 37

Article 14(3) of the Law on Education states that, within a republic, the study of its official language(s) may be introduced. The Law on Education does not clarify whether this may be compulsory; rather, it includes a set of restrictions, such as that the study of a republican language should not occur to the detriment of the study of Russian (Article 14(3)). In most cases, the republics reproduce the same legal principles in their own regional legislation; thus, republican laws, for the most part, do not include the right (or the obligation) to learn the language(s) of the republic – as ‘native language(s)’ of its residents or as ‘state language(s) of the republic’ 38 – and nor do they prohibit introduction of these languages as compulsory subjects.

In order for a language to be studied in a particular school, it has to be added as a subject in its educational program (the school curriculum). The program is developed autonomously by the school, although it has to comply with Federal State Educational Standards ( fses ). 39 The existence of these standards is provided for in the Constitution (Article 43(5)) and their content by the Law on Education: according to Article 11 of the latter, the fses define the criteria for formulation of the program of education, the conditions for its realization, and the expected results. The fses are detailed in decrees of Russia’s Ministry of Education and Science (hereinafter the ‘Ministry of Education’), 40 themselves approved by the Russian government.

Until 2007, the fses had three components: the federal level, the regional level and the individual school, each contributing to the curriculum. The regional component (known as the “national-regional component”) concerned school subjects specifically relating to the regions, such as their history and literature, and amounted to 15% of total teaching time. The other two components were devised at the federal and local level. After 2007 the concept of fses changed radically as the regional component was removed, 41 with the curriculum being divided between the “obligatory” (70%, devised at the federal level) and “variable” parts (30%, established by “participants in the education process” – or students, their parents and school officials in individual schools). 42 The fact that decision-making on the “variable part” of the curriculum may only be at the local level – without direct regulation by the republican authorities – means that fses regulations have effectively blocked the republics’ ability to establish the compulsory study of their languages. Representatives of Russia’s subjects may be invited by the Ministry of Education to participate in the process of formulating the fses , yet there is no obligation on the part of the Ministry to do so. 43

The fses do not contain the expression “state language of republics” as a compulsory subject, but only “state language” (Russian) and “native language”. In practice republican languages may be included only in the “variable” part of the education program (not affecting compulsory subjects established at the federal level). If Russia’s Ministry of Education introduced the “state languages of the republics” as an obligatory subject in the fses , each republic’s language(s) would have to be taught in all schools within its territory. The Ministry of Education could also introduce a regulation that the study of these languages be mandatory only when specifically declared in republican legislation. 44 This would, among other things, increase the financial viability of the study of languages other than Russian, since each republic – like other subjects of the Federation – is financially responsible for public education within its territory. Republics would then be in a position to directly assess the financial feasibility (and desirability) of supplementary school subjects in their programs, while also giving them the authority to ultimately decide on these matters. Russia’s Ministry of Education had not initiated these changes at the time of writing.

Eight republics introduced legal provisions prescribing the compulsory study of republican languages. In Tatarstan and Chechnya, regional legislation stipulates that republican languages (Tatar and Chechen) are to be studied “in equal measure” with Russian. In North Ossetia the study of Ossetian is compulsory for all students enrolled in public schools, along with study of the history, literature and culture of Ossetians. Dagestan’s public schools require the study of one or more republican languages. In the Republic of Komi the study of the titular language is similarly compulsory in all schools, while in Adygea the mandatory study of Adyge is limited to speakers of the language. In two cases – the Republics of Kalmykia and Karachay Cherkessia – legislation was amended following the 2017 prosecutorial inspections, to remove the legal requirement of compulsory study of the titular language. 45 In other republics – Bashkortostan and Ingushetia – there is no legal clarity as to whether the study of the relevant languages is compulsory. 46 Thus, legal provisions vary among regions, from the obligation for all students to study official languages – including intensively (“in equal measure” with Russian) – to the obligation being confined to a section of the student population. Some provisions regulating compulsory study of republican languages have been challenged through the courts, 47 as well as by prosecutorial inspections.

Even when regional legislation envisages the study of the republics’ state languages for all students – and continues to be applied despite prosecutorial inspections – the general trend has been, as noted, a reduction in the time devoted to study of (or in) regional languages.

• 1.3 The Language Dispute and its Outcome

As mentioned above, the language dispute was triggered by the July 2017 speech in Yoshkar-Ola. The main item on the event’s agenda was the implementation of linguistic rights as part of Russian policies on nationalities and inter-ethnic relations. The points made by President Putin in his speech which are relevant to this article are: the Russian language is “the natural spiritual framework of our multinational country”; every Russian citizen should speak the state language; nobody can be forced to learn a language that is not native to them; the time for the study of Russian in public schools, as allocated by fses , may not be reduced.

The language conflict that followed the Yoshkar-Ola speech had a legal basis. On the one hand, linguistic rights in Russian legislation hinge both on Russian as the state language and the language of the peoples of Russia; on the other, the republics have the right to establish their own state languages – a right which the republics have used. Moreover, that right is linked to the national-territorial (ethnic-territorial) principle which historically has been at the basis of the existence of the republics. 48 That the republics may establish their own state languages is one of few entitlements reserved to them, which allows us to refer to Russia as an asymmetric federation. 49 At the same time, it has already been noted that the education sphere, which is at the heart of the conflict, is regulated – in many respects – at the federal level. The language conflict has rekindled tensions that also emerged from Russian jurisprudence since 2001, as will be seen in the next section.

The position of the Prosecutor General’s Office has been that the state language of a republic may be used alongside Russian in the administration, but its study may not be obligatory in schools. The Prosecutor General’s Office insisted that compulsory study of the republican languages by all pupils entails a double problem: violation of students’ right to choose their language of education, 50 and a breach, on the part of the republics, of federal requirements (in particular, the fses , which do not envisage the compulsory study of republican languages). 51 However, given the approach of the Prosecutor General’s Office, republican languages – which are to be employed in the republics’ administration – are not supported throughout the education system.

Protests took place in several regions 52 among those which had required the compulsory study of republican languages. By contrast, two republics – Kalmykia 53 and Karachay-Cherkessiya 54 – amended their legislation following the prosecuratorial inspections, excluding from their legislation the obligation to study titular languages. The remaining six republics which had included the mandatory study of republican languages in their legislation – Tatarstan, North Ossetia, Dagestan, Komi, Adygea, Chechnya – had not modified their laws at the time of writing. 55

The situation changed in April 2018, when the country’s legislative organ, the State Duma of the Russian Federation, intervened in the language conflict. A group of deputies initiated a draft law amending the provisions on use of languages in the education system contained in the Law on Education. 56 The initial version of the draft law directly stipulated that “the teaching and study of the state languages of the republics of the Russian Federation is carried out on a voluntary basis”. Another option discussed was to include in the draft law the right of parents to choose the language their children should study as their “native language” from the languages of peoples of the Russian Federation (which would also include republican languages), yet still as elective subjects. 57 This led to a wave of criticism, especially in Tatarstan. 58 A group of deputies from Tatarstan’s regional parliament objected that republican languages should not be equated with “native languages”, 59 as the former hold a special status which should be reflected in their role in the education system. The petition against the draft law reached over 40,000 signatures. 60

During the debates on the first reading, it was clarified that the study of the subject “native language” would be compulsory, and that “native language” may coincide with the republican language. 61 Although a number of deputies were against certain aspects of the draft law, it was adopted at the first reading, with 377 in favor, three abstentions and one against. Following the first reading, and in line with existing procedures, the relevant committees of the State Duma compiled written opinions. The Committee on Education and Science supported the draft law in principle, but stated that its text should be substantially modified; it proposed developing a Concept on the Teaching of Native Languages, to devise alterations to the fses and assign appropriate funds for textbooks. The State Duma Committee on Nationalities argued that the voluntary nature of the study of republican languages which the draft law envisaged might lead to a decline in their quality of instruction. This was itself linked to having included languages in the “variable” (rather than the “obligatory”) part of the education program, combined with a shortage of funds. According to the Committee on Education and Science, recommendations on the draft law were received by the parliaments of 69 subjects and 73 heads of subjects of the Federation. The only negative opinion was submitted by the Tatarstani parliament. 62

By the second reading, the draft law was markedly rewritten, and the new edition was supported by a majority of deputies. In a speech during the second reading, the Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education and Science, Vyacheslav Nikonov, clarified that: a) amendments allow choice of Russian as the language studied as the subject “native language”; b) a special fund would be created to support the study of native languages; this would cover compiling and publishing textbooks in these languages, education programs, training of specialists and relevant research; 63 and c) a working group would be created on development of the Concept on the Teaching of Native Languages, and measures introduced towards implementing the government’s action plan. 64

Following a range of discussions, the law was passed at the third reading (with 388 votes ‘for’ and 2 ‘against’). 65 In the process of adoption of the law, two facts are noteworthy. First, deputies tried to resolve the tensions concerning the study of republican languages by calling on the Ministry of Education to alter the fses . The amendments’ final version stipulates that the fses are to provide the opportunity to study the state languages of the republics as well as native languages selected from among the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation (including Russian as a native language). However, in the months since the entry into force of the law, no information had transpired about new developments in this direction. Nevertheless, this step can be regarded as supporting the right of the republics to regulate the study of the relevant languages.

The second development effectively precludes the study of such languages to be made mandatory. Amendments to the Law on Education refer to the free choice to study, as a part of the curriculum, students’ native languages that correspond to the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation, including Russian itself and the republican languages. 66 The choice of language to be studied is made in line with a declaration by students’ parents or legal guardians. 67 Similar provisions have been replicated in regional legislation, such as in the Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia: under 2018 amendments, the right to study or receive an education in one’s native language “includes Russian as native language”. 68

The implications of applying the new legal provisions in relation to Russia’s linguistic environment remain unclear. Overall, we may say that the conflict stemming from a lack of fses provisions on the teaching of the republican languages ended with suppression of the republics’ rights. Even if the republican languages were included in the fses as a compulsory subject (as Russian and “native language”), in practice republican languages could only be taught on a voluntary basis, as these are equated to any other language native to the student (most students in Russia could be considered to have Russian language as native). In turn, the right to learn the native language is legally confined to “the limits of opportunities provided by the education system”. 69 As a result, if in the past republican languages could be made obligatory by regional legislation through the national-regional component (thereby guaranteeing the possibility to study them), existing procedures imply that if no teachers or textbooks are available in a school for a particular language, one can refer to the fact that the “limits” have been reached, and that Russian can be treated as native language.

A common opinion is that many students for whom languages other than Russian are native (in the sense of their belonging to a non-Russian ethnic background) will choose Russian as their native language, as this will prepare them better for the Unified State Exam, the secondary school-leaving examination. The Unified State Exam may only be taken in Russian, 70 and Russian and mathematics are its two compulsory subjects (thus, the issue of secondary school diplomas and access to higher education depend on satisfactory results in these two disciplines). 71 Another trend is the further strengthening of the role of the Russian language. As the state language, Russian was (even before the amendments) required to be studied in every school; its position has now been strengthened by prescribing that it could also be taught during native language classes. That is, for children who have not chosen any other language, Russian lessons will be doubled in volume (being simultaneously the ‘state language’ and ‘native language’).

It is doubtful that the purpose of these changes was to support the Russian language per se : according to the 2010 Census, Russian was the language spoken by 137,494,893 out of 138,312,535 persons who took part in the census; 72 rather, it seems more likely that the real aim was to prevent the compulsory study of other languages from the “languages of the peoples of Russia” (Russia’s regional or minority languages). At the same time, the compulsory study of two foreign languages was not questioned by law-makers: as per the fses , two foreign languages are included in the mandatory part of the curriculum in addition to Russian and one’s ‘native language’. 73

Legislators refrained from clarifying whether the choices available to parents and students would include a refusal to study their native languages altogether. If it were possible to opt out, the section of the education program containing obligatory subjects would effectively not be fulfilled. There is no other subject from the obligatory part of the fses that could be omitted in this way by students. If it were not possible to opt out, a situation would be created where the exercise of a right is transformed into a duty. At the same time, it may not be possible to fulfill the requirements associated with this duty if they are beyond the “the limits of opportunities provided by the education system”. This results in a contradiction which has not been resolved either by the legislators or by the courts.

After adoption of the law, the All-Tatar Public Center tried to hold a rally on this issue, but the authorities in Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, refused to authorize it. 74 This indicates that, at the regional level, the authorities have sought to comply with the federal center’s decision-making, perhaps expecting financial compensation that would mitigate the impact of new linguistic policies. Moreover, so far the new provisions have not been the subject of litigation; yet this might change, as legislators, in adopting new norms, did not take into account some of the principles of judicial practice on languages in education, outlined below.

2 Jurisprudence

Judicial practice evidences that tensions relating to the intersection between linguistic and education rights long predate the Yoshkar-Ola speech. While different positions on the compulsory teaching of regional languages have been taken by the various courts – the Russian Constitutional Court, the Russian Supreme Court and some of the republics’ Supreme Courts – jurisprudence has shaped around a general movement towards a reduction of regional autonomy and increased centralization.

Three main sets of principles emerge from the jurisprudence. The first relates to the right to free choice of language of education, to be balanced against possible obligations imposed on individuals at the regional level (through republican legislation). The second is the balance between federal and republican legislation and competences, themselves linked to the third set of principles: these relate to notions of unity (of the state) and equality (of citizens).

The main judgments relating to the compulsory study of state languages of the republics are described in the table below. The first judgment dates back to 2001, and judicial disputes both preceded and followed the introduction of fses in 2007. The table below highlights those cases in which compulsory study of the languages of the republics was considered in line with federal legislation.

• 2.1 Overview of Judgments
• 2.2 Balancing Federal and Regional Competences
• 2.3 Equality and Equal Opportunities
• 3 Conclusion

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Black Lives Matter activist loses lawsuit against Los Angeles police over ‘swatting’ hoax response

FILE - In this Aug. 5, 2020 file photo, Melina Abdullah speaks during a Black Lives Matter protest at the Hall of Justice in downtown Los Angeles. Abdullah on Thursday, May 23, 2024, lost her lawsuit against the city’s police department over its handling of hoax calls that brought a large law enforcement response to her home four years ago. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)

• Copy Link copied

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A leading Black Lives Matter activist in Los Angeles on Thursday lost her lawsuit against the city’s police department over its handling of hoax phone calls that brought a large law enforcement response to her home.

Police have said three teens driven by racial hatred were behind so-called swatting calls across the country, including two in 2020 and 2021 to the Los Angeles home of Melina Abdullah, co-founder of BLM-LA and a Cal State LA professor. “Swatting” refers to a phony emergency call made to send police to a particular address without cause.

Abdullah, a prominent police critic, condemned the Los Angeles Police Department responses to her residence, which included armed SWAT officers surrounding her house and ordering her to come outside through a loudspeaker.

She sued the the department for its actions during the Aug. 12, 2020, incident, which she said left her and her three children fearing for their lives. A jury found the LAPD and the city were not liable, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office said.

“We lost,” BLM-LA said on the social platform X. “The judge and the jury — which had no Black people — vote against us and for police violence. We will keep fighting.”

There was no immediate response to a voicemail seeking comment that was left on Abdullah’s cellphone. Her attorney, Erin Darling, said a statement would be released later.

During the trial, police Sergeant James Mankey, one of the defendants, said authorities received a call about a hostage situation at the activist’s home. Mankey told jurors he ordered officers to approach the property in tactical gear even though he was “70%” certain they were responding to a hoax, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The sergeant said he didn’t want to take the chance of not sending the officers if the 911 call turned out to be true.

Abdullah’s attorneys alleged that police targeted her because of her activism.

LAPD investigators said in 2021 that the teenagers, aged 13 to 16, connected over the Discord chat platform and were suspected in more than 30 bomb threats and swatting incidents targeting “video gamers, activists, schools, airports, houses of worship, entertainment venues and memorial parks.”