1. At the Institute of Linguistics.
On 25 January 1976 the New York Times published an article by Igor Melchuk, in which he defended Sergei Kovalyov and Andrei Sakharov from the attacks to which they had been subjected.
Igor Alexandrovich MELCHUK, Cand.Sc. (Philology) is an outstanding Soviet linguist and one of the founders of research into machine translation. At the time he was working as a senior research officer in the USSR Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Linguistics .
*
On 26 March 1976, a meeting of the Learned Council of the institute took place, at which the question of I. A. Melchuk’s re-confirmation in his post for a new period was to be discussed.
The meeting was chaired by Prof. V. N. Yartseva, Director of the Institute (and a corresponding-member of the USSR Academy of Sciences), and Yu. S. Yeliseyev, the Institute’s academic secretary and deputy director. Before the re-confirmation procedure began, V. N. Yartseva ordered all ‘outsiders’ (those who did not work at the institute) to leave the room; they included all I. A. Melchuk’s friends, both linguists and mathematicians. When Melchuk requested that his friends be allowed into the room, Yartseva replied:
“Only staff members of the institute are invited to everyday, normal working sessions … No, this is not a closed session. At a closed session, only members of the council are present. This is, really, a question of discipline within the institute… we must, obviously, decide our internal work problems without outsiders being present …“
At the beginning of the meeting, in accordance with established procedure, I. A. Melchuk gave a report on his scholarly and academic-organizational activity over the last five years.
*
From 1971 to 1975 Melchuk published over 40 scholarly works, in all more than 65 ‘author’s sheets’ [one avtorskkij list = c. 8,000 words, ed.]. In addition, Melchuk has completed other works, which were handed over to the publishers long ago but have still not been published; among these is the second part of his basic monograph The Problem of Thought-Texts.
Melchuk has given academic lectures at conferences on linguistics in his own country and has lectured at various departments of the USSR Academy of Sciences and institutes of higher education.
He has given a number of lecture courses at various institutes of higher education in different cities; he has often been consulted (on the problems of automatic text translation) by representatives of different departments and organizations; he was the academic secretary of the department of structural and applied linguistics.
In 1971-1975 Melchuk was invited more than once to take part in international conferences and symposia and prepared lectures for them, but he did not receive the necessary permission to take part in a single one, and a number of invitations did not reach him at all. Not long ago the institute authorities refused to allow him to read lectures even at the universities of Kiev and Lvov. The authorities did not let him give a copy of Thought-Texts to Fink Verlag publishers (Munich), which had offered to publish it.
*
While I. A. Melchuk’s report was being considered, Yeliseyev pointed out that many scholarly works from the institute were experiencing delays in publication, not only I. A. Melchuk’s monograph. Some manuscripts had been at the publisher’s since 1960.
As to the publication of Melchuk’s monograph in West Germany, this had been forbidden on the grounds of priority: “First it should be published in our country; then let anyone who likes translate it.” (In the USSR, the book was refused publication outright, the reason given being that the number of sheets was too high for someone who only had a Candidate’s degree.)
Later, Yeliseyev remarked:
“The academic side of Melchuk’s work is sufficiently clear from his report, but how does it compare with his socially-oriented work, his participation in methodological seminars, his attendance at political lectures?“
Melchuk reminded the members of the Learned Council that he had never refused ‘any assignment whatever’. He had indeed ‘often failed to attend’ methodological seminars, as their subject-matter was of little interest to him and he considered that “participation in methodological seminars was a voluntary matter”.
The director of the institute said: “No, the methodological seminars are most important for the ideological and political instruction of the staff.” M. M. Gukhman, D.Sc., asked Melchuk if he knew that he was “the only person in the institute who did not attend these seminars”. “No,” Melchuk replied “I didn’t know that, but I think it odd that I’m the only one who finds them uninteresting.”
*
SPEECHES
In their speeches about Melchuk’s academic activity, the members of the Learned Council referred mostly to his “lack of participation in the publicly-oriented work of the institute” and reminded him that his letters “had been used abroad to the detriment of our country”.
The director of the institute told the Learned Council that, on 25 January 1976, a letter by Melchuk had appeared in the New York Times. “I consider it necessary to inform our Learned Council”, said V. N. Yartseva, “about this action, which is impermissible not only for our institute’s academic collective, but also for the collective of the Soviet People as a whole.”
Dr. M. M. Gukhman said:
“Igor Alexandrovich’s report to us was very academic in content.
“However, recently he issued a letter which is a libel on our country, our way of life, our ideology and politics … Igor Alexandrovich is a grown man, and he must understand that his opposition to Soviet ideology is harmful, not only to our country, but to the whole of progressive mankind … it is the fuel of imperialist propaganda.
“This action of his is not merely a mistake; it is a hostile act, which makes it impossible for Igor Alexandrovich to remain in our collective.’
From the floor someone asked: “Can’t we hear the contents of the letter?” Melchuk replied that he was prepared to read out the text of the letter, but suggested that he should do so after the vote had been taken, as he did not feel that the question of his re-appointment to his post should be mixed up with the article in the New York Times.
He rose and quoted an extract from the UN’s ‘International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights’, ratified by the Soviet Union.
Yeliseyev said:
“By way of explanation I wish to say that, in accordance with instructions … a Soviet academic must be irreproachable with regard to morals and politics …
“Therefore, quoting some sort of agreement cannot artificially prevent criticism of an academic for limiting himself to a narrow academic field of activity. In addition, I. A. Melchuk has spoken before against Soviet ideology, but admitted then that he was mistaken in his actions”
(Yeliseyev was referring to letters in defence of Sinyavsky and Daniel, of Ginzburg and Galanskov, and in protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia.)
Melchuk emphasized that he had expressed repentance for these actions. “However,” he said, “I must be honest and say that I did so only under the influence of fear, and that I behaved in a cowardly manner. But I have got tired of being afraid. I’m not afraid anymore.”
*
Yeliseyev said: “People were asking about the contents of the letter to the New York Times. I have not seen the text of the letter myself, but as far as I know, it is written in support of A. D. Sakharov and is basically concerned with three points:
(1) In the USSR, citizens cannot freely express their opinions;
(2) Dissenters are persecuted; they are kept in prisons and psychiatric hospitals;
(3) Soviet society is acting unjustly in condemning Sakharov.
“I. Melchuk decisively protested against the persecution of ‘a very honest Soviet scientist’, which is how he describes Sakharov.”
(Exclamation from the audience; “How awful!”)
*
S. M. Chaidakov, chairman of the local trade union committee, now spoke.
He called the attention of the Learned Council to the fact that
“Igor Alexandrovich chose to send his letter to a newspaper which is a bulwark of the most reactionary circles in the USA, the most right-wing imperialists. We would certainly have had fewer objections if he had sent his letter to the Morning Star, for example …”
(‘You have become a puppet in someone else’s dirty hands’, echoed V. N. Yartseva.)
N. Z. Gadzhieva made a speech: Melchuk’s behaviour had made a very bad impression on her. She then developed a thesis about the relationship between science and world-views.
Yu. D. Desheriyev expressed his dissatisfaction at Melchuk’s actions in a somewhat more cautious manner.
Professor N. S. Chemodanov, academic consultant to the Progress publishing-house (now retired), asked to be allowed to speak. He had always considered Melchuk arrogant, even when they were together at Moscow State University, but he had not known anything about his political views, or he would not have signed any contracts with him for any of his works,
“Just let him try to put out communist propaganda there in the West, in West Germany, for example! There they wouldn’t allow a communist to remain in a State institution for a single day. Why should we take your views into account? I shall vote against your confirmation!”
Melchuk stated: ‘The decision of the Learned Council has been taken in advance.’
V. N. Yartseva, the director of the institute, brought the meeting of the Learned Council to a close:
“… It is true that we did not send Igor Alexandrovich on any assignments abroad. That was because every Soviet academic represents our system and the Soviet ideology. However, I. A. Melchuk always makes it clear that ‘This is my own, my personal opinion.’
“Because of the monolithic unity of the Soviet State and the Soviet people, we cannot be separated in this way: this is myself speaking, while all the other Soviet people are somewhere else; they are not me, they are themselves. We cannot think like that; either Igor Alexandrovich is with us, or he is with them. And we felt at the board meeting that he was now one of them. And a staff-member of the Institute of Linguistics must be one of us, a Soviet man.
“And it is silly of Igor Alexandrovich to say that the decision of the Learned Council was taken in advance. Nothing is ever decided in advance. The decision of the Learned Council is a matter for each member’s conscience … You have no respect for our collective… We are well aware that the world is divided in two, and you appeal to our enemies!“
Melchuk asked to be allowed to say a final word, but this was refused.
“We have listened to your report; in my opinion everything is quite clear. Let us go on to deal with the next question before us.”
These were the results of the secret vote:
19 members of the Learned Council voted against the re-confirmation of senior research officer I. A. Melchuk in his post for a new term; 2 members were for his re-confirmation; 3 votes were declared invalid.
A few days later Melchuk was informed that he would cease to be employed on 18 May 1976.
*
In recent years another body, the Russian Language Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (its director F. P. Filin, is a corresponding-member of the Academy) has dismissed the following linguists as having been “not of sufficiently high standard in competition with others” or has made them resign under threat of being declared “not of sufficiently high standard”:
Yu. D. Apresyan, L. N. Bulatova, N. A. Yesykova, L. L. Kasatkin. L. P, Krysin, G. A. Pozharitskaya, V. Z. Sannikov, E, M. Smorgunova, E. I. Khanpira and Tatyana S. Khodorovich. All of them either ‘signed’ something or defended the ‘signatories’, or defended the defenders.
*
2. At the Thorez Institute of Foreign Languages.
For about 20 years the faculty of general linguistics at the Maurice Thorez Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages has included a Laboratory of Machine Translation (henceforward LMT).
The LMT is one of the acknowledged centres of academic life for Moscow linguists working in the more contemporary fields of linguistics. It publishes a bulletin, Mechanical Translation and Applied Linguistics, well-known in the USSR and abroad, and a series of duplicated articles by the group for experimental and applied linguistics at the Russian Language Institute (USSR Academy of Sciences). The Laboratory runs seminars and conferences in linguistics and carries out research in the field of machine translation and automatic processing of texts. The LMT is responsible for deciding the subjects of academic research within the framework of COMECON.
The academic work of the Laboratory has been organized continuously on a voluntary basis by assistant professor Victor Yulevich ROZENTSVEIG, A Candidate of Philosophy (he defended his doctoral dissertation at the end of 1975) and a senior research officer at the Thorez Institute. The LMT employs five institute staff members and about 40 research workers, engineers and laboratory assistants, who have been working there for many years on contract.
Contracts with customers for 1976 were completed in time and attested by M. K. Borodulina, Rector of the institute, and G. V. Kolshansky, pro-rector of the scientific research section (also administrative head of the Laboratory). The sums contracted for were enough to pay all wages and leave a surplus. The timetables were also kept to. However, the official order on staff lists for the year, i.e. the document on whose basis the contract members of staff were paid, was not issued until 25 March.
Accordingly, almost all employees of the Laboratory had been working for some time without receiving any pay. Finally, on 25 March, Rector Borodulina issued the order, without the knowledge of Kolshansky. It omitted the names of the following six persons:
- Sergei Iosifovich Gindin, senior research officer, Candidate of Science, who has published over twenty works and has been with the LMT since he was a student;
- Yefimovna Anna Gurevich, junior research officer, who has been working at the LMT since 1968;
- Lev Lvovich Yelnitsky, junior research officer at the LMT since 1971;
- Nina Yuryevna Libedinskaya, senior laboratory assistant at the LMT since 1969;
- Elena Vladimirovna Uryson, junior research officer at the LMT since 1968;
- Irina Alexeyevna Tseitlina, junior research officer at the LMT since 1972. (Of the above, I. A. Tseitlina is not Jewish; she has taken her husband’s surname.)
V. Yu. Rozentsveig refused to confirm the incomplete staff-list and stated that, if the order was brought into force, he would resign as head of the Laboratory. The rector then declared the Laboratory closed; in the course of 1976 all the staff would be dismissed, including the five permanent staff-members. The dismissals would take place in three stages: in August, October and December. The employees were told to find new jobs for themselves.
At present the authorities are explaining the closing of the Laboratory by saying that the LMT ‘is an alien body in the Institute’, as it is not directly involved in the teaching process.
A few years ago, Borodulina was responsible for the Laboratory breaking off its long-term association with its research consultant I. A. Melchuk (see above, item 1). Soon after this, A. K. Zholkovsky, the well-known linguist, who in 1968 signed with Melchuk a letter in defence of Ginzburg and Galanskov, was dismissed from the Laboratory.
==========================================
A Chronicle of Current Events 