On the Issue of Assessing Ideological and Political Work at a University

V. M. Yadvirshis

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Scientific Communism)

As socialist society develops, ideological and political education acquires ever greater significance. It becomes one of the decisive forces of social progress, an important means of accomplishing the tasks of communist construction. Responsibility is especially increasing for the ideological and political training of highly qualified specialists who perform managerial, organizational, and educational functions. This requires a scientifically grounded system of education in higher education and an increase in its effectiveness¹.

Experience has shown that the level of ideological and political education and its results depend to a considerable extent on how the criteria for assessing ideological and political work are understood. However, the scientific definition of criteria is not a simple task. The content and structure of the criteria are determined by the complexity of the educational process. M. I. Kalinin noted: “The work of education is one of the most difficult. The best educators consider it not only a matter of science, but also of art”².

According to documents of the Party committees of many universities, at present the results or the state of ideological and political work are being assessed. As a rule, the work as a whole is assessed as satisfactory. At the same time, its positive and negative—

aspects. A satisfactory evaluation in itself does not arouse objections. Doubts arise when one begins to think about the structure of this evaluation. A certain sum of measures that made it possible to “reach” some number of students is called positive. Moreover, the measures are carried out, as a rule, by the activists for the students, who are present at them or, at best, take part in carrying them out. Successful measures are recommended for adoption as effective forms or means of ideological and political work, while shortcomings that have been revealed are to be eliminated. No analysis is given of the causes of positive and negative phenomena; therefore a satisfactory evaluation is often, to a high degree, nonspecific and formal. From those measures that are cited as arguments for a satisfactory evaluation (the number of meetings, sessions, lectures, talks, etc.) it is difficult to judge the actual state of ideological and political work. They may have both positive and negative significance. The whole point is who carried them out, how and for what purposes, and what role the students themselves played in this.

Sometimes such shortcomings are listed that make a satisfactory evaluation highly doubtful. Thus, in the minutes of the party meeting of the geological-geographical faculty of Tomsk University of March 22, 1966, while giving an overall satisfactory evaluation of the trade-union bureau’s activity, the following shortcomings are listed: “...it shows little initiative and independence. Even those measures that are recommended by the party bureau are carried out either poorly or not at all. In those cases when the trade-union bureau is drawn into joint faculty measures, it acts in bad faith or evades them”³. In the presence of such shortcomings, a satisfactory evaluation will be a factor of negative ideological and political influence.

The main shortcoming of the criteria in this case is that they are based on subjective notions about ideological and political work, its goals, tasks, and means, which are sometimes far from scientific and one-sided.

The multifactorial nature and complexity of the system of education in a higher educational institution, and the ambiguity of the phenomenon of education, require a comprehensive, dialectical approach. Fundamental, from our point of view, is the fact that the system of evaluation criteria is determined by those problems, goals, and tasks that are solved in the process of education; by the structure of the activity of educators and those being educated; and by the methods and means at their disposal. Experience has shown that it is necessary to apply criteria drawn from the very logic of the educational phenomenon itself. Moreover, in evaluating one or another fact of educational influence, it is necessary to take into account that the ideological and political content of the elements of the educational phenomenon may be different. The means may fail to correspond to the goals; the motives of the subject’s activity in particular cases may have a morally negative character (cliquishness, careerism, ostentatious initiative) and be in antagonism with the goal. Therefore it is often very difficult to give a monosyllabic evaluation. The prevailing evaluation of ideological and political work in a monosyllabic formulation ignores this complexity and allows one to evade responsibility. It seems to us most correct to give a multivalent evaluation, characterizing all elements of the educational phenomenon. Moreover

³ Party Archive of Tomsk Oblast (PATO), fond 115, inventory 10, file 229, leaf 75.

assess not the results of ideological and political education (since doing this in a small amount of time is very difficult), but the level, forms, and methods of its organization.

In order to substantiate scientific criteria for assessing ideological and political work, it is necessary to understand the process of education as a dialectical, infinite process that continues throughout a person’s entire life and, at each new stage of development, coincides neither in the content of its goals nor in its means. The solution of the tasks of each preceding stage is the initial basis for the further development of the personality. Goals realized at a new stage are transformed into means of education. Moreover, educational influence in different conditions and collectives has different mechanisms of action. The use of the same means without taking specific conditions into account may lead to undesirable results. Therefore the criteria for assessing educational work must be flexible and mobile, changing depending on the stage and content of education. It is impossible, for example, to apply identical criteria for assessing ideological and political work in secondary and higher educational institutions. However, this by no means signifies that one set of criteria exists in secondary school and another in higher school. The specificity of criteria in different collectives and at different levels of development means only a modification of general criteria, which are determined by the general laws, principles, and internal logic of ideological and political education.

One of the necessary conditions ensuring the effectiveness of ideological and political education and the correct understanding of the criteria for its assessment is the harmonious combination of three organizational levels of ideological and political work: the higher level, reflecting the needs and interests of the whole of society, as fixed in the Program of the CPSU; the middle level, reflecting the needs and interests of the basic collective; and the lower level, reflecting the interests of the primary collective and of the individual. Under socialism, the needs and interests at these levels objectively coincide and are in dialectical unity. Contradictions among them are contradictions between the general, the particular, and the individual. Therefore disproportions in organizational levels cause great costs. Ideological and political education based only on general goals and tasks leads to stereotyping, formalism, and a lack of concreteness in the work. In this case, the criteria of assessment are reduced to recording general mass-political events. Such an approach represents a great danger, since it forms qualities that we are trying to overcome: lack of independence in solving complex socio-political problems, orientation not toward the cause but toward particular persons, a desire to avoid responsibility, accommodation, and narrow practicalism.

Orientation only toward the primary collective and individual interests leads to utilitarianism in ideological and political education. In this case the work loses its socio-political directedness; an impermissible gap appears between the everyday affairs of the collective and of the individual, on the one hand, and the tasks solved by society, the state, the party, and the higher educational institution, on the other. This likewise fosters narrow practicalism, orientation toward personal, egoistic interests and goals. When the contradiction among the higher, middle, and lower levels in the organization of ideological and political work is not recognized, it acquires a dangerous character and becomes a source of apolitical attitudes and philistine moods—

...of admonitions, demagogy, cynicism, and nihilism. This contradiction arises as a result of the subjective activity of the organizers of ideological and political education and can be resolved only on the basis of the scientific organization of the latter, on the basis of a harmonious combination of the needs, interests, goals, and tasks of society, the collective, and the individual. In socialist society such a possibility is conditioned by socio-political and ideological unity, but it is not realized automatically. For this, appropriate activity on the part of the subject is necessary.

Consequently, the effectiveness of the system of education at a higher educational institution is connected with the creation of such conditions in the primary collective as would require from everyone maximum activity and responsibility on the basis of his capabilities and of the properly understood needs of society and the individual. The development of scientific criteria for evaluating it must take into account the dialectical unity of general, specific, and individual needs, interests, goals, and tasks.

Programs and plans of education, which at present have been created in almost every higher educational institution, are of great importance in increasing the effectiveness of ideological and political work and in determining the criteria for its evaluation. The programming of ideological and political work represents an initial stage in its development and requires comprehensive study. But already the first programs and plans have shown their inexhaustible possibilities. These documents make it possible to unite the efforts of the large collective of a higher educational institution in a single direction—toward the realization of common goals. At the same time, on their basis it is possible to differentiate responsibility and determine the criteria for evaluating ideological and political work. However, attention should be drawn here to the fact that criteria are programmed in any case, even when the plans say nothing about them. They are reflected in the principles by which the document is compiled, in the formulation of the goals, tasks, and means of education.

An analysis of plans for ideological and political work at various higher educational institutions has shown that most of their authors formulate the general goals of education by referring to Party documents. The necessity of this is indisputable, since the specific tasks of the higher educational institution are a concretization of the general goals. In the plans, however, they are often given in unchanged form—as recorded in Party documents. Immediately after the general goals, specific measures are listed which in themselves are of great interest and are necessary in the system of education for resolving particular questions, but they cannot solve the problems posed. Here the intermediate link drops out—the concretization of the goal and the formulation of the specific tasks of the higher educational institution. In some plans, the general and the intermediate link drop out. These plans begin and end with a list of measures³. In working plans, measures often turn into ends in themselves. Thus, many working plans are limited to indicating the need to hold a meeting, a bureau session, to hear a report from one of the subdivisions of public organizations or from its leader, to publish a wall newspaper, a Komsomol searchlight, etc.⁴ Each of these measures is necessary for solving certain

affairs, but it is precisely these affairs that are not indicated in the plans. The main substantive link drops out, and the plan turns from a working document into a formal reply. Here one observes a rupture between content and form, when individual means are “preserved,” turned into an end in themselves. This gives rise to a number of contradictions, disorganizes ideological and political education, and has a harmful effect on the understanding of evaluation criteria. In this case the process of education is carried out spontaneously; the public organizations of universities and the persons obliged to direct ideological and political work follow events, taking measures only after the fact, without anticipating them^6). Thus, the party bureau of the Electromechanical Faculty of the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute, in understanding the tasks of ideological and political education, proceeds from CPSU documents, from the program of student education developed at the institute, and from the requirements of the party committee; but current affairs (establishing order in the dormitory, resolving conflict situations, summoning leaders of student organizations to report) prevail, overwhelm everything. As a result, purposefulness, the main line, and perspective are lost. In the end, ideological and political work proceeds outside the plan and is evaluated by the number of meetings, sessions, and conversations held. One-sidedness and the absolutization of measures, as a rule, lead to undesirable consequences.

However, this by no means signifies that measures and old forms of work should be abandoned. In his time V. I. Lenin condemned the absolutization of individual forms and means of the party’s ideological and political work, but did not deny them. He emphasized that all of them “constitute the basis of the party’s activity, but without uniting them... all these forms of revolutionary struggle lose nine-tenths of their significance; they do not lead to the creation of the party’s general experience, to the creation of party tradition and continuity”^7). At the same time, this unification should not be a sum of measures. It should constitute a system of unified and differentiated tasks, forms, methods, and means of ideological and political work, constructed so that the fundamental strategic goals are fulfilled.

Experience has shown that, depending on how the essence, content, general and specific goals and tasks, forms, methods, and means are understood, indicators are also formulated for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of work. However, this criterion cannot be the only one.

All subdivisions of a university are involved, in one way or another, in the ideological and political education of students. These tasks are carried out directly through a special system of institutions, which, alongside departments of the social sciences, includes specific subdivisions of public organizations: ideological sectors of party committees and party bureaus, ideological and political sectors of committees and bureaus of the Komsomol, cultural-mass sectors of local committees, trade-union committees and trade-union bureaus, as well as the political leaders of dormitories, Komsomol organizers, and political information officers of student groups. It is very important, when developing indicators of the effectiveness of ideological and political education, to proceed from the fact that all subdivisions engaged directly in ideological and political work collectively constitute an integral and differentiated system, each element of which, and all of them together, perform their inherent func—

^6) This is indicated in a number of documents. For example: PATO, fond 607, Tomsk Regional Committee of the CPSU, inventory 3, file 93, sheets 170, 183, 200, etc.
^7) V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 4, pp. 191–192.

...by implementing common goals and tasks. Only in this way will the correct orientation in the work be provided, and we will be able, through the activity of a regulated system, to establish feedback. For this it is necessary to define clearly the functions of public organizations and of all other subdivisions of the higher educational institution.

Unfortunately, in the basic regulations and instructions concerning the work of public organizations, these functions are not differentiated. Thus, in the “Regulations on Commissions for Cultural-Mass Work of the Factory, Plant, Local (Shop) Committee of Trade Unions,” in the resolution of the eighth plenum of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, adopted on December 24, 1965, “On the Tasks of Trade Unions in Strengthening Educational Work...” it is stated that trade-union bodies must engage in ideological-political education in full measure. The specific nature of the work, and the concrete tasks and functions of trade-union organizations, however, are not singled out^8). Here the discussion concerns ideological-political work as a whole, in general terms, without reference to any particular organization. The question of the interrelation of public organizations is not posed. This is the reason why the same mass events are conducted, and public organizations duplicate one another^9).

Analyzing the documents of party committees of higher educational institutions, one comes to the conclusion that the need to differentiate functions and responsibilities is clearly felt in the activity of literally all subdivisions of the institution. In a number of documents this need is formulated as a task^10). Thus, the authors of the plan for the education of students at the Bauman Moscow Higher Technical School emphasize that, in order to eliminate inconsistency and duplication and for the purpose of differentiating responsibility, it is necessary to define the functions of the main subdivisions of public organizations. This should be done by the party committee, its sectors, especially the ideological commission, and the party bureaus of the faculties, which exercise control over the implementation of the plans^11). Here, too, an attempt is made to define the functions of subdivisions of the Komsomol and trade-union organizations. At the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute a scheme has been developed for the interaction of the party committee and public organizations, together with an explanatory note to this scheme, which defines the functions of their subdivisions^12). These functions are based not on particular tasks but on the general needs and goals of ideological-political education on the scale of the entire society. They are recorded in the Program of the CPSU and constitute the point of departure in organizing ideological-political work in all units of the higher educational institution. But they are carried out in different ways, in accordance with their specific structure and with the content of their subject activity. The public organizations of a higher educational institution function in different spheres of social life and possess different means and methods. Thus, the main subdivisions of the Komsomol organization implemen—

^8) See: Handbook of the Trade-Union Worker. Profizdat, 1967, pp. 410–418, 449–450.

^9) Duplication as one of the causes of the ineffectiveness of the ideological-political work of public organizations is mentioned in many documents. See, for example: PATO, f. 607, Tomsk Regional Committee of the CPSU, inv. 115, file 127, sheets 63, 65, 66; f. 320, inv. 10, file 92, sheet 36; file 90, sheet 17. Moscow Party Archive, f. 158, inv. 3, file 219, sheets 118–125.

^10) PATO, f. 115, inv. 10, file 224, sheets 29, 73, 76; file 226, sheet 152; file 231, sheet 27.

^11) See: A Unified Long-Term Plan of Educational Work with Students for the Entire Period of Study at the School (1968–1973). Moscow, 1968.

^12) See: Explanatory Note to the Scheme of Interaction of the Sectors of the Party Committee... Leningrad, 1969.

pursue common goals through specific forms of socio-political activity. The ideological and political functions of the trade-union organization are carried out through activity aimed at improving the conditions of study, work, leisure, and everyday life, and through cultural and mass work. This constitutes the objective basis for an adequate system of criteria for assessing the ideological and political work of each subdivision of the university.

In addition, in developing a system of criteria it is necessary to proceed from the fact that ideological and political education includes the process of development of the collective and of the individual, the process by which students’ political self-consciousness takes shape. V. I. Lenin wrote that the sign by which one may judge the real thoughts of real persons can only be the social actions of these persons, i.e., social facts⁵. Therefore, one of the criteria for assessing ideological and political work may be the determination of the degree of organization and social activity of teachers and students, and clarification of the extent to which Party organizations contribute to this, and of what their leadership consists. The style of work of the Party organization and its methods of leadership program the understanding of the criteria for assessing ideological and political work. Only businesslike, substantive leadership at a high ideological-political and methodological level programs the necessary criteria. It is known that V. I. Lenin demanded that youth not be patronized, that one not impose one’s opinion on them, but that one provide everyday comradely assistance and exercise political leadership⁶. It is necessary to help students understand their own cause, needs, and goals; correctly define the functions of their organizations; develop and convey to everyone a system of criteria for assessing ideological and political work; and teach them to work, to teach them to be a subject.

This idea is confirmed by the experience of Party leadership of student organizations at the Faculty of Automation and Computer Engineering of Tomsk Polytechnic Institute. It is a well-known fact at the institute that the students of the FACE have good training and are active and enterprising in public life. The Komsomol committee works independently, enterprisingly, and responsibly. The student council is the true master of the dormitory. A strict regime has been established there. When results were summed up at the beginning of 1970, the dormitory received 900 points for the organization of political work (second place in the institute—600 points). On the basis of the virgin-lands detachment, the students organized the club “Vacation,” whose purpose reflected common interests and appealed to the feeling of collectivism that had been strengthened on the student construction project: to spend free time together, to rest cheerfully and usefully, and to be responsible for a comrade’s academic performance. Here, too, on the students’ initiative, a “Political Club” was created, which makes it possible to broaden the framework of young people’s ideological and political training and to satisfy more fully their needs in this area. However, it would be incorrect to assert that the faculty Party bureau possesses a set of some “miraculous” educational means. It skillfully organizes and directs the students’ work and, together with them, relying on their initiative and activity, resolves the complex questions of the faculty’s life. As a result, feedback is established, and a unity of common, specific, and individual goals and tasks takes shape. The style of work and

methods of party leadership contribute to the activation of students.

In this article we have attempted to pose certain key questions concerning the determination of criteria for evaluating ideological and political work at a university, the substantiation and resolution of which are connected with in-depth theoretical and concrete sociological research.

On the basis of an analysis of documents of party committees at universities, one may conclude that the criteria for evaluating ideological and political work must constitute a system of substantive features that reflect the optimality and effectiveness of educational activity. Underlying their understanding are the laws and principles of ideological and political education. It is important not only to know this system of features, but also to be able to use them in practice. In evaluating ideological and political work, one must not take only certain isolated features. It is necessary to provide a comprehensive analysis on the basis of the entire system of criteria. In evaluating the work of individual public organizations and subdivisions of the university, one should take into account their specific character and, in each concrete case, select the principal criterion. If this is not taken into account, one may again arrive at a template, a stereotype in evaluation. A proper system of criteria provides guideposts that make it possible to compare the work of various subdivisions of the subject of education and helps to coordinate the work of the primary and the main collective. Only by being guided by a scientifically grounded system of evaluation criteria and by the rules for its application can one determine the level of organization of ideological and political work in any collective. This, in turn, will help to see the movement, the change in the process of education, by which one may legitimately judge the results of ideological and political work.

1. The need to increase the effectiveness of ideological and political education is indicated in a number of Party and Komsomol documents. See, for example: Resolution of the XXIII Congress of the CPSU on the report of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Politizdat, 1966, p. 24; Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 3, 1966, “On Measures to Improve the Training of Specialists and to Improve the Leadership of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education in the Country,” Pravda, September 9, 1966; Materials of the XV Congress of the Komsomol, Moscow, 1966. ↩

2. M. I. Kalinin, On Communist Education, Moscow, 1958, p. 224. ↩

3. See, for example: Plan of political-educational, instructional, scientific, and cultural-mass work for the 1967–1968 academic year, Chelyabinsk, 1967; Comprehensive differentiated plan of instructional-educational work, Novosibirsk, 1968; Plan of basic measures for 1968, Novosibirsk, 1968; Model plan of educational work of the Ural Polytechnic Institute, Sverdlovsk, 1969, and others. ↩

4. PATO, fond 115, inventory 10, file 225, sheets 53–54; file 243, sheets 83–92. ↩

5. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 423–424. ↩

6. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 30, p. 229. ↩