The development of current social and cultural systems is dominated by the ever increasing worldwide extent of the structures we live in, and the expansion of the co-operation and communication activities from a national to an international cultural level. The recent and current social changes seriously call into question the equation of one culture = one state = one nation. Nowadays it is obvious that the most compelling characteristic of the modern world is not its great unrest, although that was most visible, but the increasing interdependence of the people and nations throughout this shrinking planet, sometimes spoken of as a "global village" (15, pg. 434).

The key element of such structures in exceeding the level of a single culture is their variety, which represents the essential feature, reason and, at the same time, consequence of the evolution of current systems.

The utopian principles of some states with a mono-ethnical culture and a pure ethnic group are not to be found in the present day world; these principles are cancelled by the variety and the pluralism of each and every culture.

That is why the multicultural appreciation of each ethnic group, whether a majority or a minority, and the respect of otherness represent an important issue in building open communication systems. The pluralism of cultures is a potential richness, and is valued by multicultural perspectives whose main goal is the creation among people of an awareness of the richness of cultural diversity.

In order to overcome the gaps between the potential or wishful and what is feasible, the necessary condition is the efficient working of the intercultural principle of the inter penetration of the values defining different ethnic groups by stressing exchange and mutual interconnection. The opening towards other cultures may also have impact on cultural identity; an attitude of isolation within the boundaries of a single culture leads to a subjective and distorted perception of one’s culture. That blockage, within the limits of a single culture, should be replaced by an affective and cognitive balance between one’s own culture and other cultures, by successive processes of proximity and remoteness; the chain of this process must be linked objectively with the specifics and goodwill of others.

This vision requires understanding minorities not as tolerated populations or as burdens for state policy, but as an efficient and important factor contributing to cultural enrichment. Ethnic and cultural pluralism will enrich the traditions of a major culture and shape it not only by the "purity" of its own specificity, but also by a positive integration of the beneficent influences of the minority cultures included. "Ethnic minorities are not tolerated populations on a state’s territory; they are an integral part of the same nation and their contribution to the permanent existence of that nation is as important as that of the majority." (16, page 5)

For this, for the positive perception of the relation "we — other," one should begin with a real understanding of the concept of minority.

There are many definitions of the term "minority" offered by literature, But within the International Community the definition of minority is an open issue because the major criterion is hard to find. The numerical criterion is preferred, although it is not always the best because it can be arbitrary. Hence, a qualitative criterion is preferred, or in some cases, a synthesis of the numerical and qualitative criteria is chosen. Even the United Nations, after 40 years or trying to define the minority, has underlined the difficulty in finding a satisfactory definition: the states that took part in the meeting of the Committee of the Human Rights within the framework of the Social and Economic Council, in January 1991, could not reach a concrete outcome, as they considered the definition of minority unsatisfactory. (18, page 23) M. J. Deschenes offered a definition for minority in the study presented to the Committee of the Human Rights in 1985: "The term minority refers to a numeric group inferior to the rest of the population of a certain states, the members of which, having the citizenship of that state, have ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics different from those of the rest of the population and are animated by the will of keeping their own culture, traditions, religion or language". (18, page 23)

A social minority represents a racial, ethnic and political group, included within the larger society; this group is different in many points of view from the majority.

Ethnic minorities usually are identified by cultural practices different from those belonging to the basic population. We refer here to language, beliefs, traditions, customs and lifestyle. The main feature of ethnic minorities is their ethnic identification; that is, the acknowledgement of affiliation to a group and its self-identity. Sometimes, while establishing this identification, the ethnic groups might act on the assumption of their own culture and take over some features of other cultures, depending on the resemblance of the latter to the culture of that ethnic group. These attitudes of making value judgements on the basis of the ethnic backgrounds of their own group considered as the unique point of reference are seen as ethnocentric. " We are tempted to consider those who disagree with us more than different; the sociologist calls this attitude `ethnocentrism’, that is the reification of their own culture." (1, page 121)

Ethnocentrism means assuming the superiority of a culture and evaluating other cultures as good or bad depending on the degree of resemblance or difference between them: one’s own group is the center and standard by which all others are rated.

The opposite to an ethnocentric attitude is xenocentrism in relation to other groups within the same society. Xenocentrism is preference for ideas and elements belonging to cultural communities different from one’s own.

The term "racial minorities" is often used for members of other groups, identifiable through physical features different from the members of the majority group. The social dimension of race is intensified by the use of racial and ethnic myths in order to define the features of a certain group. Most of the time, these myths are supported by prejudices and stereotypes. The prejudices (which can be negative, positive or neutral; ethnic prejudices are often based on negative connotations) refer to rationally uncontrolled beliefs and feelings for all or nearly all members of a community. These prejudices arise because of some real or imaginary features associated to the race, the geographic background or political and religious orientations.

If prejudice is seen by most theorists as interpretation of another in a predetermined manner without taking into account the concrete experience, the explanation of the origin of prejudice differs considerably from one author to another. Some authors stress the social and cultural determiners of prejudice or consider the theory of frustration-aggression as the base of prejudices. In this theory individuals are considered to be driven by interests and to become hostile whenever their wishes are frustrated; they transfer their hostility to a substitute-target which is much more accessible and less assailable. This is the moment when a scape-gloating mechanism begins to operate.

The relationship between the minority and the majority groups can be various, from complete integration, to neutrality, to the manifestation of a restless nationalism, to intolerance and discrimination. The attitudinal extremes are rare, because the relations between the groups are much more complex than are the definitions.

The acceptance models admit that, among the members of different groups, there are amalgamation processes (which lead to the merging and loss of distinct groups identities) or acculturation processes (the emigrant groups give up some of the elements of their own culture and adopt those belonging to the host culture). From this point of view, one should not blame the unintentional and inevitable influence produced by the culture of the majority on that of the minority; but an intentional policy of assimilation, which encroaches upon the fundamental freedom of an ethnic population to manifest itself within the boundaries of its own culture, is not acceptable.

An alternative to acculturation is cultural pluralism, the form of social adaptation which allows the groups to maintain their distinct ethnic traditions and features. Multicultural acceptance and tolerance are the fundamental values of this perspective, which states that there are no superior and inferior cultures. This contrasts to processes which derive from acts of segregation and lead to discrimination and racism.

As a consequence of more or less accurate social reproduction, all these phenomena can be found also within the school climate, although in different degrees, for "school represents an important context and here the cultural influences are highly emphasized. Formal educational systems are cultural products meant to meet the needs of the parents’ society." (12)

The main dimension of school as a space of negotiation, promotion and perpetuation of the values derived from the intercultural contacts has more than one level: school does not mean only the area in which different experiences, traditions and customs, specific to each and every minority, meet. School must also be the area where everybody learns diversity. "For the diversity, be it cultural, ethnic or social proves to be a phenomenon that raised many problems, because people have never learned to accept it and to praise it. "Have they learned this in school ? Where else?" (3, p. 1)

School is the space where cultural pluralism should be learned, by praising diversity and the distinct morés brought by the culture of each participant. The aim of school, in a multicultural perspective, is education for and through diversity.

School should teach people how to appreciate the pluricultural values, by surpassing the mannerisms and exclusiveness of consideration of the binaryvalues as good — wrong, ours — theirs, important — minor. When it comes to culture, there are neither superior nor inferior values. The specific values praised by ethnocentric criteria must be praised by taking into account the way they enrich and vary the other cultures that face them. This equivalence between cultures is the very essence of the elimination of intolerance of the other. In school, this principle is put into practice by the moderation of the ethnic pride of the majority and by the reinforcement of the minority’s self-confidence. "The moderation of this ethnic pride leads to the following: the students become aware of the fact that culture is a self-focused reality; the beginning of the acquisition of the essential disposition is thus marked by a relativity scheme according to which nothing is absolutely true."(5) This method, which contributes to the elimination of the cognitive egocentrism, is the answer to a major demand that serves the promotion of the real multicultural education : each and every individual must feel equal to the others; so, since he/she identifies him/herself consciously with the community of which he/she is part, his /her culture should be legitimate and estimated as being as valuable as the other cultures.

Here is a UNESCO quotation to support this assertion: "We could say that a good multicultural education should allow a person to transcend the aspects of his own culture, understood as limited, and to emancipate the aspirations of that person." (17)

Schools should be oriented towards the cultural enrichment of all children, promoting respect for diversity among people, the value of human dignity and self-esteem and teaching tolerance as a fundamental value.

That is why, multicultural education is an imperative for any educational system; it regards the education of ethnic minorities or it regards the preparation of any child, for the social, cultural, political realities. "This preparation is a process by which an individual develops competencies for perceiving,believing, evaluating and behaving in cultural settings. Thus, multicultural education is viewed as an intervention and an ongoing assessment to help institutions and individuals become more responsive to the human condition, individual cultural integrity, and cultural pluralism in society." (15, p. 438)

There are no states with homogenous populations from the point of view of the ethnic origin, language or religion, just as there are not monocultural states. Romania’s population is no exception to this assertion : throughout the territory of Romania there are many people with ethnic origins different from Romanian: Magyars are 1,620,199, or 7.1 percent of the total population; Gypsies are 409,723 or 1.8 percent; Germans are 119,436 or 0.5 percent; Ukrainians are 66,833 or 0.3 percent; Russians-Lippovans are 38,868 or 0.2 percent; Turks are 29,533 or 0.1 percent; Serbians are 29,080 or 0.1 percent; Tatars are 24,649 or 0.1 percent; Slovaks are 0.1 percent; Bulgars are 0.3 percent; Croatians are 0.3 percent; Jews are 0.3 percent; Czechs are 0.3 percent; Poles are 0.3 percent; Greeks are 0.3 percent and Armenians are 0.3 percent.

Thus, ethnic Romanians represent 89.4 percent of the entire population (2,276,044,9 people). Compared to other countries Romania has a high degree of homogeneity, which has remained at this level throughout the evolution of the Romanian population:

Census 1899 1930 1956 1977 1992

Percentage

of Ethnic Romanian 92.1 percent 77.9 percent 85.7 percent 88.1 percent 89.1 percent

Besides the high degree of homogeneity, one should also remark the ethnic spread of the population; unlike many countries in Europe or America, in Romania there cannot be found Romanian ethnic vacuums, as ethnic Romanians are all over the country. (6, p. 82)

A comparison between the data offered by the census in 1992 and those in 1977 summarizes the Romanian ethnic profile : between 1977 and 1992 there was an increase of Romanian ethnics by 1,353,000 people; the same phenomenon took place among other nationalities, such as the Turkish, Russian-Lippovan, Ukrainian and Tartar. On the other hand, the number of Magyar, German and Jewish ethnics diminished. Those mutations within the structure of the population are determined by many factors, such as the different level of the natural increase of the population and the fluctuating volume of emigrants. (13) Thus, the Magyar minority registers a fertility below the national average, it is ageing; this fact also has a consequence on the rapid decrease of the school population of German origin. On the other hand, it is projected that the Romany ethnics will increase because of a higher fertility rate. The same phenomenon happens to the Ukrainian and Turkish minorities.

This situation is intensified by the negative exodus of the external migration, especially after 1989, when the number of the Magyar, German and Jewish ethnics considerably lowered. The largest volume of migration was registered among the Germans followed by the Magyars. (12.81 percent)

The Magyar minority is the most numerous of all ethnic groups in Romania. This began when the Hungarians settled in the Panonian Field in the 9th century; later they spread towards the Carpathians. Now, the Magyar population is mostly concentrated in the superior basin of the Mures and Olt rivers, in the Eastern limit of the intra-Carpathian Depression of Transylvania; in the area of the Covasna and Harghita countries live 40 percent of the Magyar population in Romania, as well as in the border area with Hungary. The rest of the Magyar ethnics are scattered in other central-western countries.

The Romany minority entered the Balkans and Romania in the 14th century by migration from India. Nicolae Lorga thought this to be in the 13th century when the Mongolians invaded the Caucasian region, but this is considered untrue by many researchers. (10) The number of avowed Romany ethnics is smaller than in reality because many declare themselves to be members of other minorities.

The German minority is represented by Saxons and Swabians. The settlement of the Saxons (Sachsen) in Transylvania took place in the final stage of the establishment of Magyar feudalism in Romania. Saxon (Banater Schwaben) ethnics live on the Transylvanian Plateau, in the area of the towns of Sibiu, Brasov, Tirgu Mures, Alba Iulia, Hunedoara. Swabians live in the Western zone of the country, mostly in Timis and Arad countries. Their colonization took place in the 18th century when some came from Germany and a small number from Austria and Bavaria. (7)

Jewish ethnics used to be highly represented in Romania: after the first World War there were one million Jews in Romania. But today, there are only 9,107 Jews or 2.3 percent of Romania’s population. (6, p. 82)

Bulgarian ethnics live in the area of Dobrudja Plateau, and some in the South of Banat. Along the sea there are 4,000 Greeks. Their number is only a little smaller than that of the Pole ethnics, who can be found in Bucharest and in the towns in Transylvania and Bucovina.

The number of Armenian ethnics is small, but they have been living on the Romanian territory for a long period of time: "Armenian colonies have different origins; they were created by the migration to the Romanian area from ancient Armenia or coming from the south, being almost mysterious because of their longevity." (2)

Even if those ethnic groups arrived on the Romanian territory earlier or later, some being more active and others less eager to prove their own specificity, they exist and have their own features and distinct elements. Respect for the culture of ethnic minorities is a major issue, and has been taken into account by the legislation of Romania.

Although minority rights were discussed and proclaimed in Romania later than in other countries, which were considering such rights as early as the 13th century, a historical analysis of evolution of the human rights shows that Romania is a country with a democratic tradition, and the new search for the international standards has had a strong basis, except for the period of Communist isolation.

The relative delay in the Romanian debates on the rights of minorities can be explained by the analysis of the social context which shows concord between Romanians and the minority nationalities; consequently there was an absence of related legislative debates.

The Constitution of a state represents the major form by means of which human rights are expressed and acknowledged. Hence, the Constitution deserves special analysis in describing the juridical framework of the observance of minority rights.

The first Constitution to introduce the democratic principles of the rights and liberties granted to citizens regardless of the their ethnic allegiance was ratified in 1923, an important source for the present Constitution of Romania. Ever since, the stipulations regarding the rights of the minorities have been included in all the Constitutions of the country.

During the Communist regime, however, they lost their juridical value and became a "dead letter" or irrelevant issue, except for propaganda aims. That clear discrepancy between reality and declarations was the subject on which Joseph Voyane, special rapporteur in Romania, wrote with regard to the 1989 resolution of the LTNO Committee on Human Rights. Joseph Voyane mentioned in his report in December 18, 1989, that:

a) "Romania was part of the most important International Conventions regarding human rights elaborated under the UNO aegis;

b)actually, these international instruments frequently are " a dead letter" or are only partly put into practice;

c) the Romanian authorities are urged to respect all the laws, decrees and settlements of the international instruments for the protection of human rights of which Romania is a signatory and to make them public if this has not already been done;

d) these international instruments should be strictly put into practice.

On February 22, 1990, as soon as the communist system was eradicated, the same special UNO report underlined the improvement of human rights in Romania and the opening toward democracy of our country. (11, p. 170)

The present Constitution of Romania was ratified through a national referendum on December 8, 1991 and is considered to be highly democratic; it contains the whole set of rights and liberties granted by the principles of universal democracy. This Constitution joins together the interwar traditions and the programmatic elements contained in the main international documents.

The association of the Constitutional guarantees with European standards concerning the rights of the minorities becomes even more obvious though an Article in the Constitution which represents a new and modem juridical formula: article 20, (2): " Where any inconsistencies exist between the covenants andtreaties on fundamental human rights to which Romania is party and internal laws the international regulations shall take precedence."

Concerning this issue, Max Van Der Stoel, the High Commissioner for National Minorities of the Conference on Security in Europe noted at the August 18, 1993 Meeting of Romania’s Council for National Minorities: " While studying the Romanian Constitution, I was surprised to find that there is an article in it which has no equivalent in any of the Constitutions of the democratic countries. Article 20 stipulates that the international treaties and conventions take precedence over internal law. I should like to see this article adopted by all member countries of the CSCE as a basic principles for the politics of these states." (19, p. 132)

(3 tables)

The Romanian educational system has faced for several centuries the implications of inter-ethnic relations.

The history of the Romanian pedagogy does not include theoretical approaches of the term "multicultural education", a relatively new concept within the Romanian pedagogy, insufficiently known and examined by the researchers; however, the aspects deriving from this concept were not ignored by the people directly or indirectly involved in the process of education. Even if the term "multicultural/intercultural education" is new, the aspects regarding the education of the various ethnic groups and the opening towards other cultures of the Romanian educational system have a long history of dynamic development. They have improved continuously in an effort to soften the solutions and eliminate the tensions and distinctions. As a consequence, pedagogical works contain many descriptive and theoretical references concerning the education of the various ethnic groups which have lived in the territory of Romania in different periods and proportions.

The most frequent fluctuations in maintaining the position as a prevailing factor took place in Transylvania; here, the changes of the political background across the centuries turned Transylvania into a land of repeated and sometimes tense instances of majority — minority relationships. Transylvanias’s history contains most of the references and debates on the minority groups, as well as most of the inter-ethnic tensions and problems.

"In spite of all the impediments, the various Transylvanian cultures not only coexisted but also drew close, for instance by means of their role of bridging between the communities. Gall Emo, a Magyar minority’s representative wrote of their role as a bridge between the majority and minority and between minority and mother — nation." (20, p. 233)

The major diversification of the population in Transylvania began in the 9th century when the first waves of Magyar people settled as far as the Eastern slopes of the Carpathians mountains; later on, in the 12th and 13th centuries the Saxons and the Szeklers arrived. As a consequence of the ethnic diversification of the Transylvanian population, there were founded the first schools for children of different ethnic origins; these were founded in 1522 and in 1545 in Sibiu by the Lutheran and Calvinist Germans and the Schola Particola, founded in 1537 in Tirgu, Mures by Hungarians of the Reformed Synod.

From the final decades of the 17th century, when the Principality of Transylvania came under Austrian sovereignty, education in the Romanian language became a problem: the Romanian children who attended state-schools founded by order of Empress Maria Tereza in 1763 were forced to learn German; Romanian access to higher education was limited. The number of schools related to the Romanian population seemed insufficient, judging by the headline of the "Transylvanian Gazette" in 1841: "Let’s learn by heart these numbers: 962 Magyar schools, 298 Romanian schools, 13 mixed schools, for they enclose a deep learning for us. The Romanians, over a million people, having the smallest number of schools and the most wicked ones?"

Soon after the introduction of German as the obligatory teaching language in all schools, that is, in the period of constitutionalism, the Royal Court in Vienna acknowledges as equal the three languages in use in Transylvania (Romanian, Magyar and German). Unfortunately, it did not last, because after the Austrian defeat at Koniggratz, Transylvania lost its independence again and, under these circumstances the laws adopted by Hungary were also valid for Transylvania.

The course of these changes proves that the ideas of many, such as George Baritiu, V.Roman, G. Muntean, P. Pipos, I. Slavici, were right when they fought for a Romanian educational system. Promoters of an education national in character, those pedagogues considered that good instruction is related to co-operation with other cultures and educational systems, for "Pedagogy is not allowed to serve national chauvinism." (I. Popescu)

The idea of the development of teaching in Romanian was also supported by Onisifor Ghibu whose Ph.D. work was entitled "Bilingual Educationin the Popular School". Here, he wrote that the request of the Transylvanian people to have schools in their language is not a matter of national chauvinism, but of natural law for Romanians as well as for any other nation." Ghibu considered that the ethnic realities of a country cannot be ignored if one develops a good teaching process. The first norm that a candidate to the Pedagogical Seminar should take into account in order to be a good teacher is: "Each candidate must know and promote the school life as a national reality and the school life of the minorities." (9, p. 246)

Ghinu’s concerns for the education of the minority groups are manifest in the themes and subjects suggested by Ghibu to students of Pedagogy: "Transylvanian realities in Romanian books today", " Evolution of the national pedagogy and the confessional problem", "Educational ideal for the Romanians and Germans in Romania" The Trefort Law (1879) introduced obligatory teaching in Magyar. No graduate from confessional or state schools can be appointed a teacher unless he has learned the Magyar language so that he is able to teach it in school".

Later on, in 1907, another law was adopted, called "Appony’s Penal Code". It stipulated the Magyarisation of Transylvania and eliminated Romanian, Serbian and Slovkian schools. After the first World War, Transylvania joined the Romanian territory and the Romanian government become its leader.

In 1924 a law was introduced by the liberal government, whose Minister of Public Instruction was Constantin Anghelescu, which stipulated the foundation of state schools where the minority groups could study in their mother tongue, though they had also to learn the Romanian language.

A year later, another law varied these stipulations, allowing for the organization and functioning of private schools. This situation could be explained by the reduced funds to support educational process in the mother-tongue in all the areas inhabited by minorities. Silviu Dragomir (8) describes the situation of schools and pupils in this period, drawing a comparison between the number of schools for the different ethnic groups before and after 1918. The results can be summarized as follows:

(3 tables)

The political and ideological changes at the end of the Second World War directly influenced the approach to ethnic diversity. Under the Russian sphere of influence, Romania began an involution process in which the good interwar democratic traditions were suddenly renounced and replaced with the imported structures of the Russian Marxist model, which, under the guise of universality imposed a Russian political, economic and cultural imperialism.

In this context, the ideology of the Marxism-Leninism considered itself as the right solution to the main inter-ethnic problems; on behalf of this socialist demagogy, many persons belonging to various ethnic groups were coopted within the upper structures of the authorities; the pretext was to underline the nondiscriminatory character of the socialist state. Furthermore, in the same period, there was a policy of showing tolerance to the ethnic minorities in the areas where they were numerous.

This new national policy, noted Liviu Maior, was influenced and legitimated by the attitude of Moscow: "Most of the stipulations in the Treaty of Trianon had been confirmed by the Treaty of Paris. On the other hand, both for Romania and Hungary (the state with the most numerous issues of national minorities), the USSR insisted on a moderate policy as promoting the unity of the Eastern block. The old rivalries were supposed to be cancelled on behalf of the principles of the Soviet internationalism. Under these circumstances, Moscow assumed the role of an arbitrator, asking the Romanian authorities to maintain a conciliatory attitude towards the important Magyar minority and also towards the other ethnic or "minority groups". (25, p. 285)

These aspects were reshaped by the social evolutions that followed, for, after 1956, besides the softening of the Soviet influence (which was a positive fact) and the timid reorientation towards the Romanian traditions, the state policy towards ethnic minorities became more rigid, though there were no discriminatory or assimilation policies.

One of the direct consequences of diminishing the permissive policy towards minorities is the history of Cluj University where teaching is in Magyar: in the summer of 1945 there was founded the "Bolyai Ianos University", where teaching was in Romanian, against the will of the Magyar ethnics. The present name of the joint universities is "Babes - Bolyai". This initiative aroused protests among the Magyar people, who were not accustomed to this kind of treatment. In compensation, in 1954 the Magyar Institute was founded in Targu Mures. Here, the Magyar language is used in the teaching process.

Although the communist system adopted radical measures against minorities, it is important to underline that the Romanian state officially admitted the existence of the various ethnic groups in the Romanian society. This was a fortunate exception, unlike other East European countries such as Albania or evens Bulgaria, because the recognition contributed to the preservation of the national and cultural identity of the respective minorities. (24, p. 286)

The 80s brought about a severe change in the Romanian people’s situation which meant also a reduction of the totalitarian political forms. This reduced the school policy to a centralist, narrowly democratic one. (21, p. 10) But the restraints imposed on the minorities in the period when the communist dictatorship intensified were similar to those imposed on the majority; the communist structures acted as a unifying element, trying to change all the inhabitants into a pauper population, deprived by elementary rights.

However, the restrictive and sometimes repressive policy adopted by the communist system did not manage totally to cancel the ethnic specificities of the minorities; in spite of the oppressions, these maintained their ethnic and cultural features which became more visible after the communist system was abolished in 1989.

Further, the disintegration of the doctrinaire communist system brought about a revival and sometimes an explosion, of ethnic groups. After 1989, in spite of several real steps toward a legislative, political and institutional realization of a new and democratic framework for the development of the fundamental human rights and of the rights and liberties specific to minorities, interethnic relations seem to become tense. The same conclusion was also reached by the IMAS in their testing of the public opinion. (22)

After 1989, the relations between different ethnic groups:

(1 table)

Specially, after 1989, the relations between Romanians and Magyars:

(1 table)

Free from the restrictions imposed by the communist system and emerging from the quasi-total cultural, social and political exclusion, the national minorities in Romania became more daring in manifesting their specificity, and more reflexive regarding their rights and freedoms.

"In all ex-communist countries we confront an assertion of the national feeling, with a constant outbreak of nationalism" (Intercultural Education Seminar, Timisoara, May 27-29, 1993) (23)

If we compare the ethnic tensions existing in other ex-communist countries with the Romanian ethnic climate, we see easily that there were very few incidents (except for some open conflicts between Romanians and Magyars and between Romanians and Gypsies). These disputes were amplified by both the Romanian and Hungarian extremists, who exaggerated the importance of the conflicts for political purposes or electoral advantages.

After 1989, the Romanian educational system revised its values and eliminated the communist ideological forms from the schools, the obligatory directions of a simple party and the standard domination of the Marxist paradigm over the epistemological approaches:

COMMUNIST EDUCATION DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION

The aim of the education is the Education is a universal human right.

collective socialization, based on the Different individuals need distinctive

equalitarian utopia and the paternal educations in order to permit them to

premises of the State, the one and only cultivate their abilities, interests and

beneficiary of the educational system. aspirations .

There is one universal truth, which is Education means freedom

vouchsafed by the ideology, a sort of emancipation and perpetual creation

science of the sciences which holds an

absolute monopoly on social know The instructed persons are capable of

ledge and action. a better understanding of the social

problems, of critical spirit and of

participation. (21, p. 11)

This democratic revision of the educational system aimed mainly to advance the instruction of representatives of the ethnic minorities. Progress was visible not only in Romania, but also abroad: The International Herald Tribune noted on July 21, 1993: "Romania took some important steps on the way of improving the rights of minority groups: 300 Magyar Hungarian teachers attend the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj, more History and Geography classes are taught in the languages of the minorities and many street signs in those languages were put up in areas where the minority represents more that 30 percent of the population". (19, p. 119)

The Education Law, adopted on June 18, 1995, fundamentally ensures the respect and cultivation of the rights and specific features of minority ethnicities in Romania, despite numerous complaints by Hungarian politicians. The whole chapter XII (art. 118 - art. 126) of this law concerns the education of minority groups: art. 118: "The members of any minority groups have the right to study and be educated in their mother-tongue at any educational level under the circumstances of the present law".

In order to support such legislative initiatives, there was established a specific institutional framework, from the ministerial level (within the Board Ministry of Education there was founded a special board for the national minorities) to the establishment or re-establishment of a great number of sections and units where teaching is in the language of the ethnicities in Romania in areas inhabited by those groups.

This school network consists of nursery schools, primary and secondary schools, high schools and vocational schools; in the school year 1994-1995, the number of these sections was 2,814 (that is 9.9 percent of the 28,566 sections in the whole country): (24, p. 14)

The statistics drawn up by the Ministry of Education reveal the following situation regarding the number of students belonging to the minority groups, taking into account the levels of education in 1994/1995 :

- pre-school education included 12,655 units attended by 715,514 children, out of which 1,338 (10.6 percent) units attended by 56,316 children (7.9 percent) operate in national minority languages

- primary school education comprised 6162 units attended by 1,335,973 pupils, out of which 594 units and sections (9.6 percent) attended by 73,434 pupils operate in national minority languages;

- middle school education involved 7,154 units and sections, attended by 1,160,838 pupils, out of which 675 units and sections (9.4 percent), attended by 62,900 pupils operate in national minority languages;

- secondary school education had 1,276 units and sections attended by 757,673 pupils, out of which 151 units and sections or 11.8 percent attended by 33,306 pupils operate in national minority languages. (24, pg. 8)

For the training of these pupils belonging to minority groups there are 267,652 teachers (in the 1994-1995 school year). The training of educators and primary school teachers is in pedagogical institutes providing Hungarian and German language courses; the teaching staff for middle, secondary and vocational education is trained in higher education establishments.

At the academic level (except for the method colleges where the students may also use their mother tongue, but are compelled to learn the terminology in Romanian, too) the teaching will be in Romanian). If requested by Hungarian or German language students, a series of lectures can be organized using the mother tongue of the respective minority. This explanatory note in the Education Law aroused protests among the Hungarian minority, as they claimed that the educational process should use their mother tongue only; but this would have required a more difficult professional integration of the graduates.

For the pupils who belong to ethnic groups and attend Romanian schools, the timetable contains four classes weekly for the elementary school level in orderto study their mother tongue and three classes weekly for the secondary school level. Classes with 15-30 students may consist of pupils coming from the same classes, parallel classes of the same school or from different schools.

The data contained in the Report, "The Teaching Process Using the Mother Tongues of the National Minorities in Romania," offer a complete image of the education of the students who belong to ethnic groups, as it describes the educational system according to the teaching language: (24, p. 10-13)

Education for the Magyar Minority. Being the most numerous minority (according to the census of 1992, the Hungarian population’s percentage within the total number of the citizens belonging to national minorities is 67.3 percent) the Magyar minority has the higher number of units and sections with teaching in their mother tongue. In 1994-1995 school year, the pre-universitary school network providing teaching in Magyar language included 207,765 pupils, 352 less than the previous year; beside these pupils, there are also 50,000 pupils who attended sections with teaching in the Romanian language.

The 8,500 students belonging to the Magyar minority can attend certain subjects in their mother tongue at Babes Bolyai University of Cluj Napoca, Bucurest University, the Medicine and Pharmacy University and the Institute of Theater in Tirgu Mures.

Education for the German Minority. After December 1989, the number of schools and sections has decreased from 479 in the 1989-1990 school year to 290 in the next school year, because of the departure from the country of a part of the German population and of condensing the school networks with German teaching language into larger units.

For the education of the 20,946 pupils belonging to the German minority, there are 1,204 teachers. In accord with the agreement between the Romanian and German Ministries of Education, 50 teachers coming from Germany are employed in Romanian schools. (19, page 24)

Education for the Ukrainian Minority. For 831 pupils belonging to this minority there exist 20 pre-universitary education units, employing 49 teachers.

Education for the Serbian Minority. In the 1989-1990 school year, the number of Serbian pupils increased from 990 to 1,024; in 1995 the number decreased to 969 pupils studying in 14 kindergartens, 21 primary and middle school education units and two secondary schools.

Education for the Slovak Minority. For this minority there are 39 units and sections with 1,370 pupils; these sections are mostly in such districts as Timis, Arad, Salaj.

Education for the Bulgarian Minority. An even larger number of children belonging to the education for the Bulgarian minority learn in schools taught in Romanian, but children of school age, upon their request, may also study their mother tongue. In consequence, in Timis, there is a kindergarten providing Bulgarian teaching language and, beginning in 1994 there is also a primary school unit. The number of Bulgarian pupils is increasing.

Education for the Czech Minority. For the Czech as a teaching language there are units for the pre-school and primary school level. These units are in the Caras Severin district.

Education for the Turkish and Tartar Minority. The 43 education units for this minority are in the Constanta, Tulcea and Braila districts. In 1993, the theological seminar for Turkish and Tartar religion was reopened.

Education for the Polish Minority. The number of children of school age belonging to the Polish minority is 317, for whom three teachers who speak Polish are employed.

Education for the Romanies Minority. For the children belonging to this minority there exist eight pre-universitary education units, attended by 302 pupils.

From all these minorities, most of the comments are related to the Magyar and to the Romany ethnics but for different reasons.

With the Magyar ethnics, the tension in interethnic relations is brought about by some disagreements between the two ethnic minorities regarding the elements of their common historical background and by more recent evolutions: the insistent signals from the Magyar ethnics echo political factors which tend to use the possible animosities as political capital. In other words, most of the existent hostilities between the two minorities originate at a higher political level.

Regarding the Romany minority, many analyses underline certain discrepancies; an example would be F. Rousso-Lenoir’s lecture for the seminar entitled "The Intercultural Dimension — an Essential Element of Secondary School Reform", held in Timisoara 9, May 27-29. The conclusion of this seminar was that "the Romany minority is an instance of the need for multicultural education in Romania." (23) Indeed, there are certain attitudes in teachers towards the Romany children, most of which derive from prejudices. This is one of the reasons why the Romany pupils scarcely take part in scholastic programs.

The Institute of Research on the Quality of Life has tested a sample of 1,804 Romany families and reached an alarming conclusion: 27.5 percent of them are illiterate and only 25.2 percent attend primary school. (14, p. 34) These percentages do not reflect, however, the attitude of the scholastic institutions, but rather a progressive process of self-isolation. Nearly 80 percent of the questioned gypsies in the above-mentioned statistic report declared themselves satisfied that the scholastic institutions treat their children unacceptably, but assume the responsibility for the lack of participation of their children in the scholastic process. This happens because school is not perceived as making a contribution to the social and professional shaping of the individual, but rather a way of leaving the community, because the educated Romany tend to join the non-Romany majority. The ways to obtain material resources are learned within the community, not in school, whichrepresents an irrelevant aspect for the traditional way of life of the Romany minority. (14, p. 34)

As can be noted, beside positive factors, there are also some which should be developed better. But, despite the mentioned discrepancies, the positive character of the factors directly or indirectly involved in the educational process of the minority groups are more important.

The conclusion is extremely clear: Romania is not and cannot be considered a monocultural area, nor can the Romanian educational system. Those who will examine the structures of the Romanian scholastic system from the first to the last level will notice that these are neither monoethnic nor monocultural. The Romanian educational system is far from being either ethnocentric or xenocentric. It is rather a question of accumulating accomplishments regarding several elements.

The Romanian political and juridical pattern allows the construction of a free educational system, open to other cultures and auspicious for the preservation and development of minority groups. This normative dimension should be associated to and doubled by the subdivisional policies and attitudes on the part of teachers. In this changing world and in this century which represents the end of all boundaries, when ethnocentrism, xenophobia and cultural isolation within the limits of a single culture are unacceptable for the future evolution of mankind, the Romanian educational system practices multiculturalism and experiences the special value of togetherness.

Babbie, Earl (1983). Sociology, An Introduction, Third edition, California.

Banateanu, Vlad (1938). Armenii in istoria si in viata Romaniei, Bucuresti.

Batelaan, Peter. "Intercultural Education," Bulletin du BIE, nr. 622/ 1990, UNESCO, Paris.

Besag, P. Frank and Nelson, Jack (1984). The Foundations of Education: Status and Change. New York: Random House.

Camilleri, Carmel (1985). "Anthropologie culturelle et education," BIE, UNESCO.

Cucu, Vasile (1995). Romania. Geografie umana, editura Glasul Bucovinei, Iasi.

Dragan, Monica, Millitz, Adalbert (1977). Minoritatea germana din Romania, Kriterion, Bucuresti.

Dragomir, Silviu (1927). The Ethnical Minorities in Transilvania, Geneva.

Ghibu, Onisifor (1977). Pentru o pedagogie romaneasca, Bucuresti, Editura Didactica si Pedagogica.

Mirfea, Mihai. "Cu privire la originea si istoria tiganilor," Revista de cercetari sociale, nr. 4/1994.

Muraru, I. (1995) "Studii constitutionale," Ed. Actam, Bucuresti.

Samovar, Larry A and Porter, Richard E. (1991) Communication between Cultures, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

Trebici, Vladimir. "este necesara o politica demografica in Romania?" in Revista de cercetari sociale, nr. 3/1994.

Zamfir, Elena, Catalin Zamfir and Catalin. (1993) Tiganii intre ignorare si ingrijorare, Editura Alternative, Bucuresti.

Constitutia Romaniei, Editura Regiei Autonome "Monitorul Oficial", Bucuresti.

Repere al invatamantului in Romania, (1995) CNPC/ PHARE, Bucuresti.

Romania in context european, 1995 coord. Elena Zamfir, Catalin Zamfir, Bucuresti, Editura Alternative.