At the close of the school year, the topic of teachers remains in focus. How do the less fortunate fare as the last quarter winds down? Will they endure the season with the help of sedatives, or at least maintain composure under pressure? Lawmakers wrestle with this concern, promising not to take offense as the debate unfolds. There is renewed discussion about adding a separate provision to the Administrative Offenses Law to address insults aimed at education staff, and the possibility of heavy fines is again on the table. The aim seems to be to deter disrespect toward those who promote what is reasonable, what is good, and what endures. Is such a measure truly necessary in today’s context?
Let’s start with the issue itself. What is happening now? State Duma deputy Yana Lantratova has raised concerns about the prestige of the teaching profession in society, noting that teachers have faced more insults lately, including in public forums and media coverage. She proposes a dedicated article in the Administrative Code to protect teachers and to impose fines of up to 700 thousand rubles for assaults on them. In emergency cases, the draft contemplates collecting 500-700 thousand rubles from legal entities, 100-200 thousand from authorities, but only 10-30 thousand from ordinary citizens who interact with teachers most frequently.
There is, however, a lack of presented statistics showing a rise in verbal attacks on educators’ last words. Yet the idea of special penalties for insulting the honor and dignity of teachers has circulated for several years, usually framed with the rhetoric that conditions have become intolerable and that limits have been reached. For seven years in the field of education, the speaker has observed the recurring refrain of this issue, noting that the law remains unchanged and that school employees often persist with quiet resolve, even if the system feels strained.
Meanwhile, Deputy Lantratova’s proposal sits alongside Article 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The rationale behind why this particular article might be unsatisfactory is not elaborated, but the provision outlines what defamation is and the responsibilities assigned to individuals, authorities, and legal entities for it. The law, critics argue, is meant to protect all citizens regardless of their professional activity.
Indeed, it is the case that no one should be subjected to insults. If one considers a broader group of socially significant employees—those who, by the nature of their work, face more frequent rudeness and unfair accusations—there are many such professions. Does this imply that after adding a clause protecting teachers, there should be similar protections for doctors, social workers, and then for others in essential services such as MFC operators, Russian Post employees, and supermarket cashiers? Who among them has not endured criticism or harsh words in the course of daily work?
But is it prudent to multiply protections beyond necessity? If there is a genuine desire to clarify the issue, why not amend Article 5.61, applying the same standard to everyone? If the goal is to deter hooliganism and abusive language, raising fines could be a more straightforward approach. The current maximum mentioned is 700 thousand rubles, as Lantratova noted.
Yet legislation is only part of the challenge; enforcement remains a separate battle. Many teachers welcome bureaucratic proposals as a means of safeguarding themselves, sometimes harboring the belief that a careless word could instantly translate into a compensation payment. There is a danger that educators might forget they must defend themselves, and that, in a conflict, no attorney will automatically represent them, no witnesses will appear, and no court case will be filed on their behalf.
That is the core difficulty. Too often, school staff discuss these concerns only in staff rooms or on professional blogs, while practical obstacles to defending rights persist in real life. Insults are not the only or even the principal problem; unpaid overtime, burdensome duties during holidays and weekends, obligatory events and trips imposed from above, endless reports, monitoring students’ social networks, compulsory participation in competitions, and involvement in Unified State Exam matters are all elements teachers confront, sometimes at the expense of personal time and well-being.
Who violates teachers’ rights in this context? Administrations, education authorities, and even the parent community play roles. Who can protect teachers? Mostly the teachers themselves. Solitary work makes it hard to stand firm; some consider abandoning the profession altogether. Yet there is potential in forming small, collaborative groups or even organized collective action inspired by historical student strikes in other contexts, rather than letting a cycle of surveys and empty promises continue. The debate often pivots to inclusion initiatives as a symbolic victory, yet practical support and unity lag behind.
It is painful to reflect on how the teaching profession can be undervalued. This is not merely uncomfortable; it can be dangerous when it leads to victim blaming or a sense that the system is unbeatable. There are days when pushing back feels like wading through a mire of bureaucracy, where even the suggestion of meaningful reform triggers resistance, and where efforts to protect teachers may be met with skepticism or deflection.
Even in periods of strain for working conditions, it remains essential to address concerns about insulting behavior without losing sight of the broader realities. It would be more honest to remind teachers that, like all workers and citizens, they have protection mechanisms and should feel empowered to use them. In the end, the conversation emphasizes practical safeguards, reliable support, and collective action as much as punitive measures. This commentary reflects a personal perspective and may differ from editorial positions elsewhere. It aims to highlight the balance between protecting educators and maintaining the integrity of a functional educational system. [citation attribution]