I studied at MGU [Moscow State] the past two years (04-06) in the Philology Faculty, which shares the 1st Humanities Corpus with Sociology, History, Law, Political Science, etc.

[M]ost of these faculties have about 2,000 students each. The 1st Corpus itself is 11 stories tall, and the 4th-11th floors have about 75 rooms each.

I noticed that there were a fair number of nationalistic and far-rightish lectures in the Humanities Corpus during my time (the First Humanities Corpus is a huge building encompassing sociology, politology, philology, law, and history). A couple of times [Vladimir] Zhirinovsky spoke, though that is somewhat normal given that he is the leader of the third largest political party and votes with the government.

Additionally, I can say that a disproportionately high number of major KPRF (Com-Party) figures teach in that corpus. This includes their municipal elections candidate, who was a dekan of one of the faculties there, and the late (as of Spring 2006) Aleksandr Zinoviev who was himself a sociologist (and lived an emigre from the USSR in Munich until 1999--but he apparently still preferred Russian Communism over 'Basic Law').

Elements of the KPRF are anti-Zionist to the point of being anti-Semitic, and certain Communist MPs were the main signatories of a letter that quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a few years ago.

That said, I do not believe these opinions are very prevalent in academia. Zinoviev himself was a Communist and anti-cosmopolitan/anti-globalist (and assumedly anti-Zionist), but himself a partly Westernised Jew. One lecturer I mentioned, Aleksandr Dugin, where you purportedly had to show your passport to be admitted [to his classes], is properly a Eurasianist. He is something of a Russian nationalist, but very far from a standard anti-Semite or anti-brown people skinhead, favoring instead a geopolitical alliance of Europe, Russia, and the Middle East against Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

He once had many contacts with the European New Right around Alain De Benoist, GRECE, and the Junge Freiheit newspaper. Then he turned to advise the Russian Communist Party, then began the ridiculous National Bolshevik Party, then promptly left it (since it is not for intellectuals), then cultivated himself as a geopolitical advisor to the party of power. In this realm, he has been moderately successful.

Largely due to America's hostility towards Russia and seeming military encirclement of it, a very harsh, Realpolitik analysis of geopolitics is increasingly popular, and with an ever more anti-American bent. This is true both in the government and the opposition, though anti-Zionism is concentrated in the Left opposition.

There are fascistic elements in both the pro-Putin, Duginist camp and in the KPRF and other opposition groups, and some fascist graffiti can be found even at MGU (from students - but it is usually contradicted with either liberal or communist slogans).

However, the student body and academia, while somewhat nationalistic and concerned with Russia's position in the world, are not terribly anti-Semitic ... Many of these intellectuals are nationalistic and anti-Western, but not particularly racist or fully xenophobic (I think of Eurasianism as a sort of modernised and glorified Soviet nationalism).

I looked for information on this episode in the sociology faculty webpage of MGU, and was unsurprised to find nothing (though, unlike the philology pages, it was very modern and updated). I looked up information on the dekan, and I did find one article he wrote entitled, "The Spiritual-Moral Evaluations of Contemporary Russian Society," which rather gives away that he is a social conservative. Other than that, he has no apparent links to the far Right or the racist end of the Left opposition.

In short, there is truth to the claim that there are academics with certain views at MGU, and held by regularly invited lecturers like Dugin, who might not be treated warmly by much of Western academia. But I find the idea that students were forcibly subjected to anti-Semitic teachings somewhat absurd. The only real direct accusation in the blog post was that the faculty posted something quoting the disreputable Protocols. That's possible -- there is a corner of the intellegentsia that believes the standard conspiracy theories, but if I had a dime for every time something with official approval morally offended me here at my university...

The New York Times (which is the source of the article cited in the post) falls in the section of Western media that disproportionately seeks out alleged instances of anti-Semitism and incidents that make Russia appear to be teetering on neo-Soviet fascism (these come from both liberal and neoconservative intelligentsia -- New Republic, Washington Post, Weekly Standard, London Times, Telegraph). Meanwhile, comparably few stories report the suffering of regular Russians due to the economic and political reforms; and due to the leaders of the past who are always heralded by the same Western leaders and publications. There are very few articles about Russian fear of NATO encroachment (though I notice American paleoconservatives seem to be increasingly sympathetic to this). I would not have much confidence in a NYT article on Russia . . . but if the Guardian begins to complain, then take notice.