DNI says goodbye to the Ukrainian language: Pushilin's new policy
The head came to life
Probably, specialists from the Varangians finally appeared in the apparatus of the head of the DPR Denis Pushilin. How else to explain the sudden activation of the chapter and all kinds of benefits that suddenly fell on the heads of unsuspecting residents of the republic?
Pushilin promised to soon cancel the curfew that was pretty boring to everyone. The website mnenie.oddr.info has been launched in the DPR, on which an unprecedented case for the republic takes place - everyone can express their opinion on various initiatives of the government of the republic. The head himself quickly enough dealt with the topic of tremors in Makeevka (it turned out to be enough to stop work at the Kalinovskaya mine) and effectively went to Ilovaisk, where he encouraged the population and dismissed the head of the city administration.
But most of all attention was attracted by the decision of the head (at the moment the bill has already been included in the agenda of the People’s Council) to amend Art. 10 of the Constitution of the DPR and the Law on Education and establish the Russian language in the status of the only state.
Watching the Mova
Mayor of Horlivka Ivan Prikhodko actively opposed the initiative of the chapter, which was first voiced in the first half of November. He put forward standard arguments that the more people know languages, the better that discrimination on the basis of language cannot be allowed and that their children almost they study Ukrainian with enthusiasm.
He was supported by Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the DPR Andrei Udovenko, who said:
Why the deputy minister is so important that the Donetsk children are fluent in the Ukrainian language, which hardly 1% of the population speaks in the republic, he did not explain. The arguments of Prikhodko and Udovenko did not convince the public. Basically, the population accepted Pushilin’s proposal with enthusiasm.
Whom and what are they teaching?
Another argument made in defense of the Ukrainian language: the possible dismissal of Ukrainian philologists. In fact, the argument is untenable. Since 2014, the number of hours of the Ukrainian language and literature has been set at the level of only 1-2 hours per week. All Ukrainian teachers were invited to retrain for Russian scholars, the demand for which in LDNR has only grown in recent years.
That is, the refusal of the Ukrainian language in schools (or the transfer of learning Ukrainian to an optional basis) is not a reason for teachers to be on the street, except for those who refuse to teach Russian for ideological reasons, but there is nothing to do either in school or in the republic generally.
In any case, the desire (or unwillingness) of several hundred teachers to change their qualifications hardly means more than the unwillingness of the vast majority of the republic’s population to see the Ukrainian language in schools, which is steadily associated with Ukraine, nationalism and Russophobia.
Most likely, those who wish to study the Ukrainian language will be provided with such opportunities. Everyone else will get extra hours of Russian language and literature, and society will get a little less annoyance (to admit, the presence of “language” at school was pretty angry for many). In the end, if one measures a person’s education by the number of languages studied, it is quite possible to introduce the study of the Serbian language instead of Ukrainian.
Information