The situation around the European University in St. Petersburg is still uncertain. On February 8 most of rooms in the University were sealed up because of ‘preventive fire-fighting regulations violation’; and on February 21 the education licence was suspended, so that about one hundred and a half students can not start their studies. Attempts of the University administration to rent some building to resume the studies haven’t met the success yet. Potential renters avoid dealing with the University in disgrace. At the same time meeting of the rector of the University Nikolai Vakhtin with the governor of St. Petersburg Valentina Matvienko that took place in Tuesday gives a new ray of hope.
Last Friday, on March 14, 2008 the head of St. Petersburg Committee on education and science Alexander Victorov met with lecturers and students of the European University. Victorov always refrained from direct answers and evasively repeated several statements. The burden of what he said was that: (1) no other than the rector is guilty of all troubles of the University; (2) he, Victorov, has no need of being a corrupt official, because he has already succeeded in fulfilling himself as a scientists and a defence technology specialist.     
The first statement helped to answer such questions as, for example, that about a contradiction between Victorov’s announcement that the city had rendered a terrific building to the University and the fact that this building is not designed for being an educational institution at all. The second one (about an official and a scientist) rescued properly when the audience hinted at selective law enforcement, for example, when someone asked where from about fifty new problems with fire safety could appear since the last year inspection.
Besides these very interesting, but maybe a little bit importunate statements Victorov imparted some ideas to the audience, which met them with different degrees of distrust, beginning at laugh and up to caustic remarks.  
First Victorov told about selector conferences which have place before the beginning of a new academic year. During these conferences year by year a question of fire safety is put even more strictly. The head of the committee on education and science expressed a regret that nobody from the University administration had not participated in these conferences to realize the importance and the urgency of the problem in advance.  
Secondly A. Victorov announced that, taking into account the total number of students and candidates, the European University was nothing prominent on a city scale. This statement sounded so bizarre after numerous letters of scientists and cultural figures, that the director of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (famous Museum of Curiosities) Yuri Chistov delivered a speech in return. He reminded that the level of competence in the European University exceeded most of post-graduate studies on social and humanitarian sciences in the city. He emphasized that there could not be many brilliants. One should mention that Chistov knows the University not by hearsay, since many lecturers and former students of it now work in research centers of his Museum.
Thirdly Victorov rebuked students for their remonstrance. He reminded to the audience words of a Poland professor that students could be easily led out in the streets but could be hardly forced back in audiences. But the students alluded in their part that just the wish to be back in audiences forced them to go in the streets. The students (and not only students) apprehend quite reasonably that as soon as mass media forget about the University, one can sign it.
By his personal example Victorov demonstrated that one didn’t need to go out to the square in Solyany pereulok for comic performances. One just needs to mount a platform and joke. He compared the situation with a famous children rhyme where a girl cried because her ball had fallen into a river. The implication is quite clear. While the scientific community bemoans the ruin of one of the leading education canters, adult and wise city administration can calm everybody by radiant prospects.
Certainly, most of all the audience wanted to believe in Victorov’s assurances that the University would be able to resume the educational process in the near future. According to him, a great work has been carried out in the building; and many defects have been already eliminated; so, there is a hope that the next inspection (scheduled on March 23-24) will permit to start lectures in at last some rooms. Furthermore Victorov is ready to act as a go-between in the renting of rooms. This sound not very convincing, but who prevents to believe in good?
After the official part of the meeting in a lobby interview Victorov told some more important things. He renounced the idea of raiding, alleging the fact that the city was one of the founders.
Secondly he assured that the closing of the University was out of the enquiring, because, according to the current legislation, for dismissal of an institute of a higher education a decision of the board of founders is needed, but the founders, including the administration of St. Petersburg are far from the idea to close the University. Lev Borkin, a representative of St. Petersburg Scientists Union, being also a founder of the European University, confirmed that the day before during the meeting of the founders the closing of the University had not been at issue.
Finally Victoriv asked the students of the EUSP to refuse from the planned open-air meeting and convert it in a round table format, which could be carried out in halls of one of St. Petersburg universities.
At the same time quite soon all spectators of the current performance will have an opportunity to find out, whether Victorov’s optimistic forecasts will come true. Tuesday’s meeting of Vakhtin with Valentina Matvienko gives hope, that studies in the European University will be soon recommenced.

See also:

The European University. Episode I