Konstantin Raikin, honored as People’s Artist of Russia, was relieved of his duties as artistic director at the Konstantin Raikin Theater School, also known as the Higher School of Performing Arts. A formal document authorizing the change was signed by the school’s rector, Anatoly Polyankin. A student described the mood among classmates as largely negative following the decision.
The central reason cited for the dismissal centered on a long-running dispute between Raikin and Rector Polyankin. In 2021 Polyankin had filed a lawsuit against Raikin, seeking dissolution of the Arkady Raikin nonprofit Fund for the Promotion and Development of Culture. Coverage at socialbites.ca explored the essence of the dispute in a feature detailing how a manager’s lawsuit could affect Raikin’s position within the school ecosystem. The legal action, if pursued to completion, carried potential consequences for real estate tied to the fund and the institution itself. A Moscow court later rejected the broader property claim, and Raikin’s name subsequently disappeared from the school’s official designation. These developments were discussed in public statements and interviews over the years.
Polyankin offered a broader perspective in an interview available on the school’s site, while socialbites.ca noted that there had been no direct attempt to reach the rector for comment. The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation stated that the Higher School of Performing Arts operates outside its jurisdiction, emphasizing its private status. In a prior interview, Polyankin had framed the school as a private enterprise, distinct from state oversight. In response, Raikin confirmed the removal, stating that the rector had eliminated the post and dismissed him from the role, effectively ending the position of artistic director. He asserted that the rector’s motives went beyond governance and appeared directed at real estate interests as well.
Opinions from Raikin’s supporters and critics alike circulated within the school community. A former student described the rector as having drawn up a charter unilaterally and restricting artistic decision-making, which, according to them, hindered both teachers and students. The sentiment echoed by several students was that Polyankin’s presence stifled creative and educational activities, with some noting that the canteen had not operated since April and classrooms and stages were intermittently restricted. One student noted that access to audiences had become an issue, and that orders and controls increasingly dominated daily life at the institution. The implication drawn by these accounts was that a change in leadership was necessary for the school’s future development.
For many students, dismissing Polyankin from leadership roles emerged as a potential path to revitalizing the school’s mission. The call from the student body and faculty alike was for a new direction that would restore academic freedom and a stable working environment. A statement attributed to a student council member stressed the need for external influence to effect meaningful governance changes, particularly to ensure continuity of study and career prospects for students and faculty.
Within the alumni community, voices ranging from performers to critics expressed concern about the removal of Raikin from the post he had helped establish. Nikolai Balatsky, a graduate and faculty member, voiced disbelief at removing the person who helped shape the school’s identity. He described Raikin as a founder who collaborated closely with both full-time and part-time students, often arriving early to prepare lessons and build a community. The sentiment was that Raikin’s leadership had become a cornerstone of the school’s culture, and eliminating him was seen as tearing at the fabric of the institution.
Public figures connected to Raikin’s circle weighed in as well. Anya Chipovskaya, an alumna of Raikin’s workshop at the Moscow Art Theater School, condemned what she described as injustice and humiliation, calling into question whether a true rector would implement such measures. Other alumni shared concerns about fairness and governance, arguing that the school’s identity was tied to Raikin’s vision and that removing him risked eroding the institution’s legacy.
Several voices from the acting faculty expressed alarm about the broader implications of leadership changes. Alina Gumirova spoke of a perceived injustice, noting that Raikin’s school bears his name and contributed to its prestige. She warned that replacing Raikin with a different label could undermine the school’s mission and warned against allowing arbitrary decisions to dictate its future. Another alumna, Karina Andolenko, emphasized opposition to Raikin’s dismissal and urged a return to the leadership that had built the school.
Despite the tension, some students pointed to the risk of a shutdown or further disruption if the current leadership persisted. Anastasia Gaidukova, a third-year student studying theater criticism and playwriting, remarked that removing Raikin could be tantamount to closing the school, while highlighting concerns about the rector’s limited engagement with student life and the learning process. A peer, Anna Lifirenko, underscored the importance of Raikin as a creator and guiding force behind the school, arguing that removing him would be misaligned with the institution’s purpose and history.
Another student, Darina Lekomtseva, described Raikin as a guiding magnet for students and a standard of inspiration within the program. She suggested that without his presence, the school would struggle to attract and retain talented faculty and students, which could alter the school’s character and affect long-term outcomes. In sum, the discussions reflected a broader concern about preserving the school’s soul and ensuring that students have access to robust mentorship on their artistic journeys.
As the situation continued to unfold, participants called for a careful, rights-respecting approach to governance that would protect both learners and educators. The evolving narrative highlighted the tension between leadership choices and the school’s mission to cultivate artistic excellence, while underscoring the need for transparent processes that align with the expectations of students, alumni, and the broader arts community. The path forward remained uncertain, with ongoing debates about whether leadership realignment could stabilize the school and safeguard its future for generations of performers.