LETTER TO THE EDITOR (09/18/05)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Authors' response to letters to the editor

Dear Editor:

Dr. Roman Procyk and Dr. George Kasianov replied in defense of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI) in The Ukrainian Weekly (August 21). The two letters were in response to our joint article titled "A guide to who's who in D.C.'s Ukraine-related activities" (August 7).

The two letters referred to only one paragraph that dealt with HURI. To place this into context, the paragraph dealing with HURI was only one out of 64 paragraphs that the lengthy article included.

It is perhaps understandable that Dr. Procyk takes any criticism of HURI personally because of his direct involvement in raising funds for HURI through the Ukrainian Studies Fund. But, this does not mean that discussion should not remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Our joint article deliberately did not point accusatory fingers at individuals in the Ukrainian American organizations we discussed.

Dr. Procyk is wrong to minimize disillusionment with HURI in its unwillingness to expand its scope to give greater attention to contemporary Ukraine. This view is out there in the Ukrainian American community, including among those who donated funds to HURI in the 1970s and 1980s, and this disillusionment draws upon the weak development of contemporary Ukrainian studies at HURI.

This disillusionment is in no way an attempt to downplay the important work that HURI does, as HURI's website states, in the "specializations of HURI's own faculty: history, literature and language." HURI continues to remain the leading Western institution in these three fields of Ukrainian studies.

We would like to tailor our response in two ways.

Firstly, let us look at the record of HURI itself on contemporary Ukraine (taken from its own website at www.huri.harvard.edu) to see if it is indeed as committed to this field of teaching and research as Drs. Procyk and Kasianov believe it to be.

We should say at the outset that HURI is not unique in not devoting sufficient attention to contemporary Ukraine. Let us define this as the salaried employment of a full-time (or more than one full-time) individual who teaches, researches and writes on contemporary Ukraine during the entire academic year. This, therefore, excludes teaching on contemporary Ukraine within the framework of the Summer School, although this provides an important contribution to this field, as it does not take place during the two semesters of the regular academic year.

Now let us apply this definition not only to HURI but throughout North America where there are five centers of Ukrainian studies: University of Ottawa (Chair of Ukrainian Studies Dominique Arel), Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (Edmonton-Toronto), University of Toronto (Chair of Ukrainian Studies Paul R. Magocsi), Columbia University and HURI (Chairs of Ukrainian Studies Roman Szporluk, George Grabowicz, Michael Flier).

Of these five academic centers only one - the University of Ottawa - employs an individual (Prof. Arel) whose research and teaching are devoted to contemporary Ukraine. This conclusion is surprising coming 14 years after Ukraine became an independent state.

Let us now look at the invited scholars who have come to HURI. Of the 30 Eugene and Daymel Shklar Fellowships in residence at HURI between 2001 to 2005, only three dealt with contemporary Ukraine. Of these three, two were political scientists and one an anthropologist, and all were present in the first-year of the Shklar Fellowships in 2001-2002.

The reason for this focus in the Shklar Fellowships is explained by the HURI website: "By their professional profile and areas of interest the group mostly reflects the specializations of HURI's own faculty: history, literature and language." In 2002-2003 these included: "five historians and four philologists, including specialists in both literature and language."

Since 1995, of the 11 Vasyl and Maria Petryshyn memorial annual lectures held at HURI, four dealt with contemporary Ukraine.

HURI's website also provides a list of 72 books published since HURI was established in 1973. Of these 72 books, only five (7 percent) deal with contemporary Ukraine and one covers Belarus. Another book includes a special collection of Prof. Szporluk's work that mainly covers his articles on Soviet Ukraine and Soviet nationality policy.

It is striking that of the five books published on contemporary Ukraine only two (gender issues and international relations) are written from a political science perspective. Three of the five books are written by Ukraine's former Defense Minister Konstantin Morozov (one of which is a memoir that Taras Kuzio reviewed positively for the journal Europe-Asia studies) and Ukraine's former Ambassador to the U.S. Yuri Shcherbak.

The reason that 65 of HURI's 72 published books are in non-political science areas is explained by the HURI website. HURI's book publication, "reflects the specializations of HURI's own faculty: history, literature and language."

Unfortunately, among these 65 books there is no history of Ukraine written and published since the USSR disintegrated. The only two new histories of Ukraine published since 1992 in the West were both published in Toronto by Prof. Orest Subtelny ("Ukraine. A History") and Prof. Magocsi (A History of Ukraine). Subtelny's history has been published in three editions since 1989. In Ukraine 1 million copies have appeared in Ukrainian and Russian translation since its first publication in Kyiv in 1991.

The same focus on non-political science issues is true of Harvard Ukrainian Studies. As the HURI website explains, "Harvard Ukrainian Studies, the journal of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, serves as a forum for new scholarship in Ukrainian studies. It deals primarily with history, language and literature; at times related disciplines are included."

Between 1992 and 2001, when the last issue of Harvard Ukrainian Studies was published, there have been few articles on political science topics dealing with contemporary Ukraine. Issues of Harvard Ukrainian Studies planned for 2002-2006 deal with HURI's traditional fields of interest, rather than political science topics.

Another area to investigate is HURI's outreach to the American community when dealing with contemporary Ukraine. This is one area where there has been widespread disappointment at HURI's unwillingness, or inability, to provide expert interviews during the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election and the Orange Revolution. Requests for media interviews were turned away and passed on to other experts, such as Dr. Kuzio.

Contrast this with the involvement of the CIUS during the election and the Orange Revolution, which was the subject of their report ("CIUS and the Orange Revolution" by Bohdan Klid, The Ukrainian Weekly, May 1). HURI has yet to publish a similar report about its public outreach during these historic events of 2004.

Secondly, another factor to raise in this discussion is how the low priority afforded to contemporary Ukraine can be rectified. There are probably insufficient funds within the Ukrainian American and Ukrainian Canadian communities, as well as too little support within established Ukrainian studies academic centers, to provide for further chairs or even tenured academic professors.

An alternative could be to hire full-time lecturers in contemporary Ukraine. Based on student enrolment in Dr. Kuzio's courses at the Universities of Toronto and George Washington University, as well as in Dr. Kasianov's Harvard Ukrainian Summer School course, there is high demand from students for political science courses on contemporary Ukraine, particularly after the Orange Revolution.

The hiring of lecturers would not be financially prohibitive as they would cost less than tenured professors (and a lot less than endowed chairs). They would also increase the contemporary Ukraine research and publications profile of established Ukrainian studies academic centers.

Three conclusions can be made from this reply to Drs. Procyk and Kasianov.

Firstly, HURI continues to focus, as its website explains, primarily on the three areas it was established to deal with: history, language and literature. These are the three fields in which its three endowed chairs are: Prof. Szporluk (history), Prof. Flier (language) and Prof. Grabowicz (literature). This is not a criticism but simply a statement of fact as reflected in HURI's books, its scholarly journal, teaching, invited speakers and visiting researchers.

Secondly, this confirms what we both pointed out in our August 7 article - namely, that political science research into, and publication on, contemporary Ukraine is now being primarily conducted outside established Ukrainian studies academic centers, such as HURI.

Political science articles on contemporary Ukraine appear in myriad political science and area studies journals that exist in the United Kingdom and North America. Political scientists seeking tenure also have to show publication or pending publication in peer-reviewed journals. Being four years behind schedule sadly dissuades political scientists from sending articles to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.

Thirdly, in three areas, Canada outshines the United States: it has an academic center solely devoted to contemporary Ukraine at the university of Ottawa, CIUS is more active in public outreach dealing with contemporary Ukraine, and Canadian historians (although both are Ukrainian American expats living in Toronto) have led the way in writing new histories of Ukraine. Prof. Subtelny's "Ukraine. A History" has been highly influential in both the West and in Ukraine itself.

This letter has outlined some suggestions to improve this situation. But, a requirement for there to be progress is an open and frank discussion. It is this factor that, unfortunately, is not always supported by some members of the North American Ukrainian community.

Taras Kuzio and Orest Deychakivsky
Washington

| Home Page |