Southeast Europe

leveled at the legislation was that it did not even uphold educational rights for minorities
to the standard they had enjoyed under communism (Weber, 1998:215).
Article 118 of the law corresponds to the Constitution in stating that, “the persons
belonging to national minorities have the right to study and receive instruction in their
mother tongue at all levels and all forms of education in accordance with the present
law.”
Those receiving education in their mother tongue are also granted the right “upon
request, that, as a subject of study, the history and traditions of the respective national
minority, are taught in the mother tongue [Article 120(4)]. The law also provides for
“proportional representation ... in keeping with professional competence” of teachers
who are members of national minorities in school administration.
However, the minorities interpreted other provisions as harmful to mother tongue
education. Among them was Article 120(2) which stated that, “in junior secondary
schools, the history of Romanians and the geography of Romania shall be taught in
Romanian on the basis of identical curricula and textbooks as for classes taught in
Romanian schools. Examinations for these subjects shall be taken in Romanian.” Points
of contention here were the phrase “history of Romanians” as opposed to the former
clause that read: “history of Romania which encompassed all Romanian citizens
regardless of ethnic origin”, and the compulsory study of both subjects in Romanian.
The law also made mother tongue education in certain fields impossible. Specialist
teaching in Romanian was stated to be provided in “the vocational, economic,
administrative, agricultural, forestall, agro-mountainous, public secondary forms of
education” [Article 122(1)]. The only reference made to minority languages was a brief
concession that teaching technical terminology in the mother tongue would be ensured
“to the best extent possible”. Mother tongue higher education suffered too, with
reductions in the number of subjects that could be studied in minority languages.
The provisions for university entrance examinations were also widely criticised. The
law stated that these tests “shall be taken in Romanian at all levels” but that they could
be taken in the mother tongue “for schools, classes and specialised courses taught in the
mother tongue in accordance with the present law.” However, a number of tests must be
passed both to graduate from secondary education and to progress to higher education.
Access to mother tongue education at the higher level is very limited. The language in
which a member of a minority takes such an exam is therefore vital. Students belonging
to minorities have little chance of competing successfully in exams where the language
of examination is Romanian. They are, therefore, better prepared having received at
least their secondary education in Romanian, a choice “suggested” by the law (Weber,
1998:218).
Discontent with the law was so widespread and vocal that shortly after its adoption the
government issued Emergency Order No.39 of July 14, 1997, to amend it. This Order
included changes to the article concerning vocational training, higher education, and
university entrance examinations. The Law 151 of July 30, 1999 partly abrogated the
Emergency Order. Article no.8 (1) stipulated that “education in national minority
languages should be allowed at all levels” […] and (2) education should be provided “in
the mother language in the closest locality where it is possible”. (3) Article no.9 was
also modified and provisions for both “the organisation of specific theological education
for staff for the religions recognised by the state”, and (4) “the possibility to found and
40