Lithuania removes two Russian authors from minority-school curriculum, Meduza reports

Lithuania’s education ministry has removed works by Mikhail Lomonosov and Gavriil Derzhavin from the ninth-grade Russian minority language and literature curriculum, Meduza reported on September 7, citing Lithuanian broadcaster LRT. The reported decision concerns specified authors within a school course, rather than establishing a general prohibition on Russian literature.

Selection remains contested

According to Meduza, Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevičius had objected to Lomonosov’s celebration of Russian imperial warfare and proposed adding Ukrainian writer Taras Shevchenko. The ministry said that addition required further analysis. The report did not establish why Derzhavin was removed. That leaves both the explanation for one exclusion and the proposed replacement unresolved.

The practical question is how a revised reading list will serve pupils. Removing an author and choosing replacement material require different judgments: one concerns the suitability of existing texts, while the other concerns what students should learn instead. A useful assessment would examine the selected works, teaching guidance and intended educational outcomes together.

A separate international rights assessment

Relevant institutional background comes from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In a March 12 follow-up letter, it welcomed Lithuania’s adoption of legislation protecting national minorities, including provisions for representation. However, it said the information supplied was insufficient to assess how minority-language rights could be exercised publicly alongside existing state-language regulations.

The committee also sought fuller evidence about measures protecting minority language, religion, culture and identity. Its assessment was an information gap, not a finding on this September curriculum decision. The letter predates the reported removals and cannot establish whether either literary exclusion complies with Lithuania’s obligations. It nevertheless identifies the broader standards against which policy effects deserve scrutiny.

What would clarify the consequences

The next useful evidence would be the revised syllabus and an explanation of the criteria applied to authors. Those documents would help distinguish changes in literary content from changes in access to minority-language education. The question of Shevchenko’s inclusion also remains open in the reporting. For now, the decision’s wider significance should be judged through its implementation and educational effects; the available evidence does not establish a diplomatic confrontation, an international legal ruling or a broader ban.