Armenian Genocide Bill- Controversy on Campus

[thedebutante]

Recently, the Stanford Senate passed a bill commemorating the Armenian Genocide. The bill was introduced by a Senator who is also a member of Stanford's ASA. However, the bill is a source of controversy now as students try to determine if such stances are within the student senate's purview. The Armenian community including the ANCA was outraged at what was published in the Stanford Daily. I just want to see what you all think of this and if anyone might want to react with a letter to the editor. This guy from Berkeley did last night. The following articles will lead you to what's going on.

The first was publised on Apr 15, 2005 in the Stanford Daily by one of the members of the Stanford ASA as an op-ed piece (yup, they still call it an opinion even after the Univ recognizes it):


By Ani Kardashian
Friday, April 15, 2005
last updated April 14, 2005 6:09 PM

Throughout the 1990s and today, crimes against humanity in Rwanda, Kosovo and the Darfur region of Sudan
have compelled Stanford students to take an active role in addressing worldwide issues of human rights crimes and

genocide. Last Saturday, about 100 students joined in STANDFast, a nation-wide fast commemorating the 11th

anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide, to raise money for the victims of the crisis in Darfur. The

burgeoning interest among the undergraduate population in genocide affairs is a small step toward galvanizing

national action against these recent crimes against humanity. Stanford students took an even bigger moral step

forward this week with the passage of an Undergraduate Senate bill commemorating the 90th anniversary of the

Armenian Genocide.

And it's about time.

I am always pleasantly surprised by the few people I meet on campus who know of the first genocide of the

20th century, the Armenian genocide of 1915, perpetrated by the Young Turks in an attempt to systematically

eradicate the Armenian population throughout the Ottoman Empire. Yet my elation is always clouded by the disturbing

fact that the majority of the people on campus have not even heard of the genocide, an event that accounts for more

than 1.5 million deaths and for the displacement of an entire ethnic population from their homeland.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Young Turk regime emerged, consisting of radical young military

officers who were troubled by the decline of Ottoman power, the numerous minority groups inhabiting the empire and

the stagnant environment of the empire. They espoused a form of Turkish nationalism called Pan-Turkism, or Turanism,

which created a new and improved empire sans the problem of minorities. As U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau observed, "The

time had finally come to make Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks." The Armenians, as the biggest minority

within the empire, became the main obstacle to Turanism and beginning in April 1915 the defenseless victims of

genocide. Under the guise of World War I, the Young Turk regime displaced the Armenian population from their

villages to the Syrian Desert for the next eight years, using deportations as a new form of massacre.

While making no attempt to conceal these atrocities, the Turkish government denies that the Armenian

genocide ever occurred. Turkish denial of the genocide and attempts to erase their past atrocities from the history

books has prompted the members of the international community, including the United States, to refuse acknowledging

that the genocide actually occurred. This denial has arguably contributed to future genocides, including the

Holocaust and more recent genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. Only three decades after the Armenian genocide for

example, Hitler realized this international ignorance and used it as fodder for executing the Jewish Holocaust,

remarking "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Nine decades later, as the memory of the Armenian genocide lives on, it is imperative that we recognize this

abhorrent crime against humanity and fight inaction, which inevitably leads to future genocide. Hopefully the

passage of the genocide bill by the Senate will promote greater awareness on campus and stress the need to act

against such inhumane offenses that occur today. In conjunction with the passage of the genocide bill, the Armenian

Students Association is holding Fast For Armenia, a charity event commemorating the victims of the genocide and

constructing a brighter future for the Republic of Armenia.

While the Armenian community is promoting awareness on campuses like Stanford and throughout the world, the

active denial from Turkey hinders closure from the past. The wounds inflicted by the Turks, still raw and tender,

continue to fester, unable to heal from the stigma of denial. And while we wait for the day to come when Turkey will

own up to its responsibilities as it proceeds to join the European Union, we must recognize the importance of

shedding light on the memory of such minority groups as the Armenians, Jews, Sudanese in Darfur, and Rwandans that

flicker with hope for a brighter future rather than fade away with the past.


Ok, then on Apr 18, a Turkish Student responds to her article with another op-ed (here we should keep in mind that the initial article was not meant to argue about the Genocide but simply to talk about the bill that was passed. however, the turkish student thought it was necessary to deny the genocide anyway):

By Cihan Baran
Monday, April 18, 2005
last updated April 18, 2005 2:16 AM

In her op-ed, Ani Kardashian rightly speaks of the lack of awareness of past atrocities in today’s community (“Armenian genocide must not be forgotten,” April 15). Yet her deliberate attempts to distort the past and represent on side of what has been going on as a historical discussion is a terrible blow to intellectual integrity. The question of the so-called “Armenian genocide” is an open one. People who are unaware of this issue should bear in mind that there is no foregone conclusion about this matter, as in the case of Holocaust.
Let’s view the issue in the framework that Kardashian has set up for us. I claim that it is plausible to establish the inconsistencies analytically in her message. She claims that the “Young Turk regime emerged, consisting of radical young military officers who were troubled by the . . . the numerous minority groups inhabiting the empire . . . “ So it is said that the Young Turks were troubled by more than one minority.

The point then becomes obvious. Any serious student of history knows that the Ottoman Empire was a vast mosaic of ethnic diversity. The Empire tolerated and treated with respect throughout its history Arabs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Slavs, Armenians and peoples of many other ethnicities. If these Young Turks were keen on their radical nationalism, why did they try to only exterminate the Armenians of all the different ethnicities? Why would they pick on a particular race as opposed to all the others? Of course, Kardashian, while speaking of many ethnicities in the Ottoman Empire, isn’t able to speak of genocides that relate to other people.

But then, let’s raise our heads above Kardashian’s politicking and biased ways and at least try to put things in a better perspective. The end of 19th century was completely transforming for the Ottoman Empire. With the advent of such ideas as democracy and nationalism, many groups within the Ottoman Empire claimed their independence — Balkan nations are such examples. Armenians, however, had not yet formed such an independent state. As the Ottoman Empire weakened, the Armenians saw World War I as an opportunity for independence. They have allied with Russia, who was battling the Ottoman Empire, to back-stab the Ottoman Nation from the inside. In their zeal against the Ottoman Nation, many villages were burned, innocent Turks killed, tortured and raped. As a result of these evil deeds, the Ottoman Government forcibly deported them to other regions (such as south-eastern Anatolia).

Even more disgraceful statements follow from Kardishian. Identifying taking position in a historical and open debate as “denial,” she writes, “This denial has arguably contributed to future genocides, including the Holocaust and more recent genocides in Rwanda and Darfur.” I dare Kardashian to prove and show evidence for this statement. Where can we find reference in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to Ottoman Empire and what allegedly happened to the Armenians? How does the right of a nation to defend itself spouse such huge atrocities as Holocaust?

Even if this alleged “genocide” did happen, why is Turkey being held responsible for what happened? There are sufficient differences for us to think of as the Ottoman Empire and the modern Turkey as two different entities. Ottoman Empire was a monarchy under the rule of a dynasty. Turkey is a democracy. Ottoman Empire’s official religion was Islam. Modern Turkey is secular. Those who ruled the Ottoman Empire didn’t save Turkey from its enemies in the War of Independence at the end of World War I — but at least proposed Turkey to be a mandate of a “superior” nation such as the US or Britain. The founders of modern Turkey and the great savior of the Turkish nation, Ataturk, fought these enemies. I believe these differences are sufficient to hold the Ottoman Empire and the modern Turkey as different entities. Maintaining that they are the same, holding one responsible for the other, would be to assert that two sculptures of different form but of same material are identical.

If historical evidence is presented, I am willing to re-evaluate my claims. But at least, the unaware reader should bear in mind that this is an ongoing historical debate, without an established truth.


see next post...

[thedebutante]

continued...

The following day, Apr 19, the Stanford Daily's editorial board (with names undisclosed) published the following article questioning the bill on the Genocide. this is the article that pissed the armenian community off yesterday (word gets around fast and the ANCA might release a statement soon):

Bill on Armenian genocide falls outside of Senate’s purview


By Editorial Board
Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Last week, the ASSU Undergraduate Senate passed a bill to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915. Calling this event “the first genocide of the 20th century,” the bill draws a connection between the Armenian genocide and “the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of the Sudan.” Genocide is an important and timely issue that the Stanford community should be aware of, but that doesn’t mean the Senate was right to pass a bill on it.
A Senate meeting is not the proper setting for discussing such a sensitive, non-campus-related issue. The issue of the Armenian genocide remains hotly contested, especially among the Turkish and Armenian communities at Stanford. Some still hesitate to label the incidents of 1915 as “genocide,” choosing to use words like “massacre” or “atrocities” to describe the events instead. The Daily’s editorial board is certainly not in a position to evaluate these claims — but neither, we believe, is the Senate.

We doubt that the individual senators appreciate the political nuances of this issue sufficiently to make an informed decision on the bill. Political naivete is reflected in the bill’s language, which comes across as unnecessarily emotive. For example, it stridently denounces “the denialist campaign of the Turkish regime, which strives to falsify history and erase any trace of the Armenian Genocide . . .” Such strong language seems ill-suited to generating thoughtful debate on the issue among the student body.

Moreover, the Senate’s decision to pass this bill sets up a strange precedent for future Senate meetings. After deciding to commemorate an event that took place 90 years ago, is the Senate going to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Tiananmen Square incident? While the Armenian Genocide deserves attention, singling it out as the subject of a bill seems arbitrary.

We are also skeptical about how much of an impact such bills are likely to make on the average Stanford student’s consciousness. In general, there are better ways of raising awareness of pressing international issues such as genocide.

Last week, the ASSU Undergraduate Senate passed a bill to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915. Calling this event “the first genocide of the 20th century,” the bill draws a connection between the Armenian genocide and “the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of the Sudan.” Genocide is an important and timely issue that the Stanford community should be aware of, but that doesn’t mean the Senate was right to pass a bill on it.

A Senate meeting is not the proper setting for discussing such a sensitive, non-campus-related issue. The issue of the Armenian genocide remains hotly contested, especially among the Turkish and Armenian communities at Stanford. Some still hesitate to label the incidents of 1915 as “genocide,” choosing to use words like “massacre” or “atrocities” to describe the events instead. The Daily’s editorial board is certainly not in a position to evaluate these claims — but neither, we believe, is the Senate.

We doubt that the individual senators appreciate the political nuances of this issue sufficiently to make an informed decision on the bill. Political naivete is reflected in the bill’s language, which comes across as unnecessarily emotive. For example, it stridently denounces “the denialist campaign of the Turkish regime, which strives to falsify history and erase any trace of the Armenian Genocide . . .” Such strong language seems ill-suited to generating thoughtful debate on the issue among the student body.

Moreover, the Senate’s decision to pass this bill sets up a strange precedent for future Senate meetings. After deciding to commemorate an event that took place 90 years ago, is the Senate going to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Tiananmen Square incident? While the Armenian Genocide deserves attention, singling it out as the subject of a bill seems arbitrary.

We are also skeptical about how much of an impact such bills are likely to make on the average Stanford student’s consciousness. In general, there are better ways of raising awareness of pressing international issues such as genocide.

In this case, for instance, the Senate could work with the Armenian Students Association to organize activities to commemorate the event and educate Stanford students at the same time. Such a course of action would be much more visible and productive, and would be more likely to start the kind of dialogue that an event of such gravity deserves. We doubt that the individual senators appreciate the political nuances of this issue sufficiently to make an informed decision on the bill. Political naivete is reflected in the bill's language, which comes across as unnecessarily emotive. For example, it stridently denounces "the denialist campaign of the Turkish regime, which strives to falsify history and erase any trace of the Armenian Genocide. . ." The Senate seems ill-suited as a forum for discussing such sensitive political issues, particularly when such strong and potentially one-sided language is involved.

Moreover, the Senate's decision to pass this bill sets up a strange precedent for future Senate meetings. After deciding to commemorate an event that took place ninety years ago, is the Senate going to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Tiananmen Square incident?

We are also skeptical about how much of an impact future bills with similar intent are likely to make on the average Stanford student's consciousness. Surely there are better ways of raising awareness of pressing international issues such as genocide. In this case, for instance, the Senate could work with the Armenian Students Association to organize activities to commemorate the event and educate Stanford students at the same time. Such a course of action would be much more visible and productive, and would be more likely to start the kind of dialogue that an event of such gravity deserves.

Yesterday morning a concerned Armenian from Berkeley wrote a letter to the editor:

Fact is fact, and for the editorial board to even bring up an historical fact as being debatable is wrong and unethical. The Stanford Daily should look into the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide (“Bill on Armenian genocide falls out of Senate’s purview,” April 19) before making sweeping generalizations that it was wrong to pass such a bill.
I am disgusted that the editorial board would even decide to publish such an article when not only the California legislature has passed such bills, but numerous states throughout the union, numerous cities and many other countries.

In the future please look into the facts surrounding such a sensitive topic to many people in the world before insulting a large part of the community.


Argam DerHartunian
Berkeley, CA


So far, our ASA does not want to start a back and forth argument. So we are looking for concerned members of the Armenian community to take a stand. It was a big step getting Stanford University to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Now we need your support. I will update as soon as things progress.

[thedebutante]

update:

I got one of the senators who voted for the bill (not the armenian senator who introduced it) to write an article rejecting the Daily's claims. I just read over it and it's ready to print in tomorrow's paper.