The “Vance Syndrome” and the uncertain future of the AGMI

Rumors about the forced “change” of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI), have now been confirmed, making it possible to discuss the matter openly. To say that the situation involves significant injustice and humiliation would be an understatement. Under such circumstances, even mentioning scientific impartiality and academic freedom seems pointless. I worked at AGMI, with some interruptions, from 2006 to 2014. Afterward, I continued active cooperation with the institution and, during the past eight years, also collaborated in an institutional capacity as a researcher at the Lepsius House in Potsdam, providing archival materials, literature and organizing joint initiatives. I currently serve as a member of the editorial board of the AGMI journal. Gzoyan was elected director of AGMI two years ago. Clearly, these past two years have been the most productive in AGMI's history across many areas: an unprecedented number of scholarly articles published in international and high-ranking journals; after persistent efforts, the International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies was included last year in the highly sought-after Scopus index of academic journals — the only publication in this field in Armenia included there; international conferences and events were organized with global partners; an audio-guide system was introduced and made available in multiple languages; the contributions of all staff members, not just a select few, were recognized and encouraged; and connections with diaspora Armenian scholars were strengthened, and their contributions to AGMI’s work increased. It is impossible to list all the accomplishments. Why remove Edita? Where did she fail? Consider the scholarly aspect: Review the works and articles published by Gzoyan over the last two years, including those in international journals with impact factors. How many scholars in Armenia in this field have more publications? Consider also AGMI’s active collaboration with diaspora scholars. The clearest proof of their disagreement with this decision is that the two diaspora scholars on the Board of Trustees — Raymond Kevorkian and Stephan Astourian — have both left the board, along with Vasken Yacoubian, president of the AGBU Armenia office, and two other scholars from Armenia, Hranush Kharatyan and Harutyun Marutyan. Look at the management aspect: the best evidence is the joint letter-appeal from all 74 AGMI employees — even though it was clear it would not be accepted — asking authorities to prevent the change of director. As someone who spent many years at AGMI and knows its inner workings well, I assure you that such unity and positive atmosphere have never existed there before — I, of all people, know that. Apparently, the claims are correct that her dismissal relates to J.D. Vance’s visit and the director’s conversation about Artsakh, which is so undesirable to the authorities. Moreover, judging from the videos, she even had the “audacity” to accompany Vance to the khachkars commemorating the massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan and tell him about them and present him with a book. (I would gladly recount an attempt to “convince” an influential professor in Leipzig on precisely this topic in a much more complicated situation — and the respected professor’s “beautiful” and “accessible” reply — but I cannot make it public.) Personally, I believe that Vance’s visit was simply the final stroke. To her credit, Gzoyan has always spoken out about the issue of Artsakh. A large amount of work has been done in that direction. She has also raised other topics undesirable for the “constructive” authorities within the context of the Armenian Genocide, including subjects such as Operation Nemesis and the Tehlirian trial. Her dismissal is certainly not related to the construction works at the memorial complex, as has been suggested. First, the construction is primarily under the ministry's control. Besides, if that had been the reason, the director would have been dismissed last year when the controversy surrounding the construction reached its peak. Finally, if construction had truly been the issue, they could have appointed an “extraordinary and plenipotentiary foreman” until the work was completed. Or a rhetorical question arises: after the construction is finished, will the future director with construction expertise leave the position? Well then — long live “academic freedom,” long live “effective” governance, long live the “appreciation” of diaspora Armenian scholars, long live the “recognition” of the efforts to internationalize AGMI’s work and Armenian scholarship, long live the talent for “taking into account” the opinion of AGMI employees and finally, long live “justice.” Now appoint a “professional” whose only qualification will be “flexibility” and adaptability. Otherwise, the “Vance syndrome” tends to recur.

The “Vance Syndrome” and the uncertain future of the AGMI

This story is FREE for you...

Hayk Martirosyan

2 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This story is FREE for you...

Hayk Martirosyan

2 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related Articles

Turkey, Armenia and the limits of transport-route diversification

A Hairenik book on a Marine Corps bunk

From Velvet Revolution to selective justice

The last Dashnak is a theory of the nation