The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine triggered an immediate reexamination of Western universities’ academic ties with Russia. A number of institutions rightly responded by suspending their programs in Russia due to safety concerns and to avoid financially supporting the Russian state. In the wake of the invasion, Princeton, among other universities, decided to relocate their programs to other post-Soviet states, such as Estonia. But this decision ignores the complex histories of these host countries.
Princeton’s Russian Summer Program should not be run in any post-Soviet state, rather than merely being transplanted outside of Russia. The program’s presence in Estonia represents a troubling continuation of academic colonialism rather than a thoughtful response to Russia’s ongoing imperial ambitions in the region. In fact, this relocation perpetuates further ethical problems of cultural erasure by treating Estonia as a substitute for Russian immersion.
The program promises “full linguistic and cultural immersion” and promotes Estonia’s large Russian-speaking population, noting that “almost one third of Estonia’s population are native Russians.” Yet this framing glosses over a deeply fraught history: those Russian-speaking communities are, in large part, the product of forced Soviet-era Russification, a policy that repressed local languages and identities across Estonia and other Baltic states.
Estonia is a distinctly Finno-Ugric nation with a unique linguistic heritage entirely separate from Slavic languages. When educational institutions market the country’s “Russian side,” they diminish Estonia’s independent cultural identity. Estonia’s official language is Estonian, not Russian. By advertising Estonia as an alternative location to practice Russian, the University fails to treat Estonia as it is: a sovereign nation with its own cultural identity and historical trauma related to Russian domination. Princeton is not taking a stand against Russian imperialism — it’s simply finding a more palatable way to continue supporting it.
When Estonia is leveraged solely as a vessel for Russian practice, student participants develop a distorted perception of the country in which they are studying and miss out on the opportunity for a more nuanced cultural education.
The consequences of this cultural misinterpretation extend beyond student experiences. The presence of Russian speakers in Estonia isn’t merely a convenient cultural feature — it’s the lingering result of policies deliberately designed to suppress Estonian national identity. Estonia’s recent decision to phase out Russian as a language of instruction in its schools makes Princeton’s programs an obstacle to the country’s goals for their own future: the strengthening national identity.
In discussions on an Estonian Reddit community, commenters have expressed concerns about foreign universities using their country as a surrogate Russian-language environment, and their discomfort is justified. Estonia itself is actively ramping up fortifications along its border with Russia. Its citizens are immersed in the lived reality of a nation defending itself against potential Russian aggression, while Princeton’s academic programs treat Estonia as a convenient Russian language laboratory.
So what should Princeton’s Slavic languages department do instead? For institutions genuinely committed to ethical engagement with the region, the answer isn’t to find new locations for Russian immersion — it’s to fundamentally reconsider the existence of these programs altogether, perhaps by developing alternatives that center Estonian culture and history or, at the very least, offering courses in any of the languages of the Baltic states (Princeton doesn’t offer Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian). Such offerings would acknowledge these nations as cultures worth studying in their own right, not merely as venues for Russian practice. Until then, these repackaged programs remain what they always were: vestiges of linguistic colonialism.
While Russian language immersion has legitimate academic value, universities should make a clean break with the practice of operating Russian immersion programs in post-Soviet states. No amount of acknowledgment of Estonia’s colonial history or incorporation of Estonian cultural education would be sufficient while Russian language instruction is imposed onto the nation. Some institutions, like Columbia and Penn, distance themselves from the responsibility of running such programs, merely listing external options for students seeking Russian immersion — both domestic and international. While this approach might appear to abdicate educational responsibility, it represents a more ethical stance than directly perpetuating harmful academic practices.
For students who require intensive language experience, Princeton can, like its peer institutions, simply provide information about existing programs without the University’s direct involvement or endorsement. Ideally, this would be accompanied by a more comprehensive approach that centers scholars from the region, incorporates diverse linguistic perspectives, and amplifies voices from all Eastern European and Baltic countries, not just Russia.
Princeton’s Slavic Languages department has the opportunity to take a principled stance by refraining from operating programs that exploit post-Soviet states as Russian language laboratories. Until then, its summer program will remain what it is now: an uncomfortable remnant of academic colonialism poorly disguised as cultural immersion.
Veronika Kitsul is a junior in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Dolishnie Zaluchchia, Ukraine. She can be reached at vk6976[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Why the Resources Committee is not recommending dissociation from Israel
John T. GrovesI want to use this opportunity to explain how the Resources Committee arrived at its decision to not recommend dissociation from Israel, and to anticipate and answer some questions members of our community may have.
I want to use this opportunity to explain how the Resources Committee arrived at its decision to not recommend dissociation from Israel, and to anticipate and answer some questions members of our community may have.
Princeton should call itself a sanctuary city
Wynne CongerIt would not be an exaggeration to say that Princeton already effectively functions as a “sanctuary city.” So why does the town continue to distance itself from the title and opt for the distinction of “welcoming city” in its stead?
Bezos ’86 silenced his opinion section. We’re committed to protecting ours.
Jerry Zhu and Frances BroganBezos is restricting the “personal liberties” he claims to care about. But we’re dedicated to protecting your personal liberties — to write and read Opinion pieces from a plethora of perspectives, about a variety of topics.
Bezos is restricting the “personal liberties” he claims to care about. But we’re dedicated to protecting your personal liberties — to write and read Opinion pieces from a plethora of perspectives, about a variety of topics.
