Ball’s in Court: Will MN Court Dismiss TCA’s Claims?

(A.W.)—On Jan. 24, the defendants in the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) v. the University of Minnesota case submitted their Reply to the U.S. District Court of Minnesota. The plaintiffs, listed as the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) and first-year university student Sinan Cingilli, have filed a lawsuit against the University of Minnesota, University President Robert Bruininks, and Prof. Bruno Chaouat, the director of the university’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS), for including the TCA’s website in a list of “unreliable websites”—because of genocide denial—on CHGS’s webpage.

On Dec. 17, the defendants submitted an Opening Memorandum to the court, in which they filed for the dismissal of the case. On Jan. 10, the plaintiffs filed their Response, to which the defendants submitted the aforementioned Reply, signed by Mark Rotenberg, the university general counsel.

“Many of the ‘facts’ set forth in plaintiffs’ Complaint and recited in their Response are nothing more than conclusory statements, or threadbare recitals of the elements of their claims,” argue the defendants. “Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts in their Complaint from which this Court could conclude plaintiffs were blocked from engaging in free speech.”

While the plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ actions have violated their right to free speech, Cingilli has claimed, “The point of the case is to remove obstacles to free, critical thinking.”

The university removed the list before the suit was brought forth, but insisted the decision was made prior to the court case. “The decision to remove the links to ‘unreliable websites’ was made before the Turkish Coalition of America began its efforts to intimidate CHGS into removing the links,” wrote Chaouat in an open letter posted on the CHGS website. (This latter statement brought forth another defamation charge.) Chaouat wrote that his motive to remove the list of “unreliable websites” was to refrain from giving those sites any publicity. “My rationale was quite simple: never promote, even negatively, sources of illegitimate information,” he wrote.

The plaintiffs have based their suit on three statements: the “Unreliable Website” statement, the statement made by Chaouat in the open letter, and a statement alleged to have been made by Chaouat during a meeting with Cingilli.

The defendants argue that they are entitled to their opinion regarding the reliability of the TCA website. They argue that the plaintiffs were not prohibited from voicing their views, but for the purposes of scholarly research, the university and its faculty retain the right to establish academic criteria.

The lawsuit has seven charges. In their Reply, the defendants contend against each charge, and urge the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. They remind the court that “The defendants have the right to express their views.”

In their response to the defendants’ Opening Memorandum, the plaintiffs claimed that they were neither asking the court to “sit as a virtual Minnesota State Board of Education to review professional educational judgments made by Defendants,” nor “to sanction professors or universities for publishing their scholarly opinions of the reliability or value of various sources of information…”

But that, the defendants argue, is “precisely” what the plaintiffs are hoping the court will do, which would in effect “violate defendants’ right to Academic Freedom.”

Plaintiffs cannot state a First Amendment Claim,” say the defendants. The plaintiffs have argued that in their statements, the defendants warned students against accessing the TCA website.

There were no such warnings, assert the defendants: “At most, defendants warned students against using information from the TCA website as the basis for scholarly research because, in defendants’ opinion, the information was not reliable.” University students can still access the website from any campus computer or through the campus wi-fi network. Furthermore, no known authority “gives students the right to rely upon whatever sources they like when performing scholarly research or writing research paper.” It is the university and the faculty that have the right to institute academic criteria, they say.

Plaintiffs cannot state a Due Process claim” because the Plaintiffs’ Complaint “does not establish a violation of any legally cognizable right” supportive of a Due Process claim. According to the defense, the TCA’s publicly expressed views may be subject to scholarly critique, while no known authority gives students the right to rely on any source they choose for the purpose of writing research papers.

Since there is not a known authority limiting the right of the defendants to engage in scholarly critique, the “Plaintiffs cannot state an Equal Protection claim,” argue the defendants, continuing: “In their opinion, sources that deny the Armenian Genocide are not reliable and should not serve as the basis for scholarly work. Defendants recognize that plaintiffs hold a different opinion… In their Response, plaintiffs protest the inclusion of the TCA website on the CHGS’s unreliable websites list along with websites that deny the Jewish Holocaust during World War II. Plaintiffs apparently fail to recognize that the adherents to those websites likely believe in their position just as strongly as plaintiffs believe in theirs. Prof. Chaouat and the CHGS disagree with plaintiffs’ views just as they disagree with the views expressed by those websites. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, no one has the right to be free from scholarly critique or criticism of their publicly expressed views.”

The defense further argues that “Plaintiffs cannot state a defamation claim.” The plaintiffs’ claim was that the defendants defamed the TCA by “implying knowledge of facts that would demonstrate its website practiced ‘scholastic fraud.’” The defendants say that in no way did they suggest or accuse the TCA of fraud. “Disagreeing with someone, or expressing your view that they are wrong, is not the same as accusing them of fraud,” the defendants maintain.

Moreover, the defense argues that “Plaintiffs lack standing to proceed with their claims.” In addition, “The claims against defendants Bruininks and Chaouat are barred by qualified immunity,” and should therefore be dismissed. The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” as held by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). As employees of the University of Minnesota, a state institution, Bruininks and Chaouat are advancing that defense.

In conclusion, the defendants ask the court to dismiss the case; “to order plaintiffs’ to pay the costs and fees incurred by the defendants in responding to the Complaint; and to award the defendants such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.”

The hearing is scheduled to take place on Feb. 4. The proceedings are open to the public. The dates may be rescheduled at short notice, but will be posted on the court’s daily calendar.

Nanore Barsoumian

Nanore Barsoumian

Nanore Barsoumian was the editor of the Armenian Weekly from 2014 to 2016. She served as assistant editor of the Armenian Weekly from 2010 to 2014. Her writings focus on human rights, politics, poverty, and environmental and gender issues. She has reported from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabagh, Javakhk and Turkey. She earned her B.A. degree in Political Science and English and her M.A. in Conflict Resolution from the University of Massachusetts (Boston).
Nanore Barsoumian

Latest posts by Nanore Barsoumian (see all)

5 Comments

  1. Unless the judge has completely lost his mind – which is very common among American judges these days – he should dismiss this absurd lawsuit.

    The Turks and their Turkophile friends are, of course, trying to intimidate Armenians and those who acknowledge the genocide.  That is the point of these recent deluge of lawsuits.

    I don’t think it will work.  Armenians won the case in Massachusettts, and will probably win the one on MN. 

    These set good legal precedents for us.  The Turkish “view” is going to wind up in even worse shape than before.

    But Armenians and genocide scholars have to be vigilant and careful. The case in California showed that Armenians do not, for example, always have to cite the genocide as “genocide” in order to go after insurance companies and banks.  As Harut Sassounian stated in this week’s column, those companies owe Armenians money, and it does not matter whether it was because of a genocide, massacres, auto accidents, or theft by Turkey.

  2. Federal and state courts often allow plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead their case before dismissing it, so even if the Court feels that the current Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a valid claim, the plaintiffs may be allowed at least one more opportunity to plead a case by way of their Complaint.

    Anything can happen at this early stage, but ultimately, the Plaintiffs will lose the courtroom part of the case. Universities have a right to state their opinions and criticisms, this University did not infringe anyone’s speech by doing so, and Universities must set forth minimum standards for serious scholarship. If the student Plaintiff differs with these standards, he should use his rights of speech – not lawsuits – to change the University’s mind.   

    However, the Plaintiffs probably have two objectives which do not require final courtroom victory to be realized.

    The first is to make the United States like Turkey, where affirming the Genocide can get you sued.  Mr. Kirlikovali, the new President of the ATAA has said exactly this: affirming the Genocide will get you sued.

    The second is to seek discovery of people who do not share their views.  There is a good chance the Court would not allow much of that discovery, even if it allows this case to proceed.

     

  3. I am sooo sick and tired of Turks and their Turkofile friends trying every avenue to shut down, to scare or imtimidate those who stand for justic and truth about the Genocide.. I am sick and tired of their cowardly mannerism and cowardly ways of doing this..seriously you idiots.. suing a University of something they have the right to do? such screwed up people.. i am sick of them…

    Hope that the court will kick their a$*$*$($($(($( out and thell them to shut the hell up once and for all..

    Sick of their games..but you know what? they can sue but they can’t stop us.. bastards..

    Gayane

  4. Gayen writes: they can’t stop us.. bastards..

    I believe you are very sincere and while many of us will agree with your vigor, public expression as such (‘bastards’)can work negatively towards our interests.  Tempered thought helps much more with credibility.

    While I can write with similar disdain, I try to make sure nobody but myself sees it.

  5. Mardehros…

    Thank you for taking the time to write…….

    however, i have not expressed anything that could be considered punishment from God or anyone else.. I expressed a word that describes those who take such steps to create choas and anger and fear in our courts, communities and govt… that word represents specific individuals or organizations and not the entire country or people…

    I appreciate your feedback and please know I understand your point; however I will stick to how I feel or see fit to write…

    P.S.  The name is Gayane and not Gayen.

    Sincerely,

    Gayane

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.