Turkey Declares Legal War In The Usa

[Hovik]

Mass. Sued For Citing Armenian `genocide' By Turks

MASS. SUED FOR CITING ARMENIAN `GENOCIDE' BY TURKS

National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: Weekend Edition Sunday 12:00 AM EST NPR

ANCHORS: LIANE HANSEN

REPORTERS: ANTHONY BROOKS

Two Boston-area teachers and a high school senior are suing the
Massachusetts Department of Education, accusing it of censorship and
political interference in the classroom. The suit is prompted by a
long-simmering debate about the ghastly events that befell hundreds
of thousands of Armenians during World War I as the Ottoman Empire
crumbled. At the core of this case are these questions: What is
historical truth? And: Who decides how it's taught? NPR's Anthony
Brooks reports.

ANTHONY BROOKS reporting:

There's little debate that starting in 1915 the Turks began to deport
hundreds of thousands of Armenians. Men, women and children were forced
into the desert, where many died of starvation and disease while many
others were murdered. Many people know this as the Armenian genocide,
which claimed the lives of perhaps a million and a half people. But
to this day, Turkey claims the deaths were caused by ethnic conflict
and war, not genocide. And this sparks an emotional debate.

State Senator STEVEN TOLMAN (Democrat, Massachusetts): It's outrageous
to say that there is another side. The history is what it is. It
is genocide.

BROOKS: State Senator Steven Tolman is a Democrat who grew up in
Watertown, Massachusetts, home to one of the country's largest
Armenian-American communities.

State Sen. TOLMAN: I got it right here.

BROOKS: Tolman shuffles through a file of papers until he finds what
he's looking for, the text of a dispatch from America's ambassador
to Turkey in 1915.

State Sen. TOLMAN: `It appears that a campaign of race extermination
is in progress under the pretext of reprisal against rebellion.' This
is from our own eyes, the top government official from America in 1915.

BROOKS: In 1998, Tolman sponsored a law that required the Department
of Education to establish guidelines for a high school curriculum
on human rights and genocide. Among the subjects to be taught, the
Holocaust, the Irish potato famine and the Armenian genocide. The
Ed. Department's guidelines offer information and links to scholarship
about the Armenian tragedy. At first, they included material from a
few scholars and Turkish groups who argue that what happened to the
Armenians may have been tragic but it was not a planned genocide. But
State Senator Tolman protested and forced state education officials
to remove the dissenting material from the guidelines.

Mr. HARVEY SILVERGLADE (Civil Liberties Attorney): This history should
be taught to our children. And that's what this law was about. So
to say that it didn't occur is just inappropriate. You can't say it
didn't occur. This is a case involving political interference with
academic questions.

BROOKS: That's Harvey Silverglade, a civil liberties attorney who
filed suit in federal court in Boston, accusing the state Department
of Education of censorship. Silverglade says it's wrong for legislators
to insist on a particular point of view in the classroom.

Mr. SILVERGLADE: It's fine for them to say, `You've got to teach
these kids about genocide.' It is not fine to say, `Oh, by the way,
because I have a lot of Armenians in my district, you'd better not
include any materials that question whether or not the slaughter of
the Armenians constituted a genocide.'

BROOKS: Silverglade filed suit on behalf of the Assembly of Turkish
American Associations. The group provided some of the materials
that challenge the case for genocide, which were removed from the
curriculum guidelines. The plaintiffs also include Bill Schechter,
a history teacher at Lincoln-Sudbury High School outside of Boston,
and one of his students, 17-year-old Todd Griswold(ph).

TODD GRISWOLD (Student): There are two sides to the history. There's
the debate going on. And we shouldn't deny that. We should show both
sides in the schools and allow Americans to make up their own mind.

Mr. BILL SCHECHTER (History Teacher): And what's at stake here is
academic freedom, ultimately.

BROOKS: History teacher and plaintiff Bill Schechter.

Mr. SCHECHTER: Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, the ability of
students to get different points of view.

BROOKS: But Anthony Barsamian, chairman of the Armenian Assembly of
America, says what's at stake here is the truth. He says it's wrong
to include curriculum materials that deny the reality of the Armenian
genocide just as it would be wrong to use neo-Nazi materials to teach
about the Jewish Holocaust.

Mr. ANTHONY BARSAMIAN (Chairman, Armenian Assembly of America): The
record is very, very clear. The Armenian genocide has been clearly
documented. Holocaust scholars have come out clearly on this issue
and I think it would not be in the best interest of students to have
materials that contradict what happened in history.

BROOKS: Many Holocaust scholars agree with that but a small number
of respected historians argue that the Armenian tragedy does not
meet the definition of genocide, the premeditated annihilation of
a national or ethnic group. The UN doesn't have a position on the
question and the US government, which counts Turkey as a close ally,
doesn't refer to the events as genocide. History teacher and plaintiff
Bill Schechter says he doesn't have a position except that credible
historians disagree, and that scholarship and debate should determine
historic truth, not the government.

Mr. SCHECHTER: This is exactly what we found frightening about the
Soviet Union, where kids were required to learn an official version of
history. Schools and teachers have to be in the business of education,
not indoctrination.

BROOKS: The lawsuit demands that the Department of Education put the
dissenting materials back in the curriculum guide. Armenian-Americans
say that would be a mistake but some of them welcome the court
challenge as an opportunity to remind Americans of how so many of their
ancestors suffered 90 years ago. Anthony Brooks, NPR News, Boston.

HANSEN: You're listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News.

[Gavur]

Published in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on 11/21/05.

Silverglate's case is `without merit'

To the editor:

Setting aside the long irrelevant passages that could have been
(and possibly were) written in Ankara, the nub of Harvey
Silverglate's argument in the matter of the Armenian Genocide is
that "not allowing us to deny a historical fact is violation of
the First Amendment" ("Facing history and our First Amendment,"
Oct. 31).

My copy of the U.S. Constitution says simply: "Congress shall
make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." It does not
add "therefore, if someone wants to teach that the earth is flat,
he should be allowed to do so in the country's schools."

He argues, in effect, that the Armenian Genocide should be the
only such well-documented fact that should be accorded the honor
of having "the otherside" presented as legitimate. Why? Because
the Turks say that it never happened.

Let us not forget that the Turks, themselves, held a War Crimes
Trial and, at its conclusion in July 1919, found seven leaders of
the Young Turks who had perpetrated the Genocide guilty in
absentia (having fled the country) and sentenced them to
death. Thus, interestingly, not only did Turkey commit the first
genocide of the 20th century only, but also conducted the first
War Crimes Trial.

If not permitting the denial of a historical fact is a violation
of the First Amendment right to "free speech," will Silverglate
now institute a case for the denial of the Nazi Genocide of the
Jews because there are those who also say it didn't happen? I
think not.

Very disingenuously, Silverglate tries to present himself as a
"neutral" interested only in "free speech," the search for
knowledge and enlightenment and motherhood and apple pie, yet he
admits that some Armenian died "through a combination of
killings, relocations, disease and hunger," without addressing
the questions "Who ordered the killings?" "Who did the killings?"
"Who ordered the relocations and why?" and "Why was there disease
and hunger?"

And then he includes the Turkish lie that there was a "civil
war." A "civil war" suggests a conflict between a legitimate
government (in this case, Constantinople) and a challenger or
quasi-government (of which there was none). In positing this
ridiculous claim, the Turks (and, therefore, Silverglate) do not
name who comprised this challenging or quasi-government and where
it sat. A "civil war" suggests an organized army - with leaders
and chains-of-command. Neither the Turks nor Silverglate can
name three such "civil war" battles, where they were fought, when
they were fought, who led the two sides, what the casualties were
on both sides and who won each battle (presumably
theTurks). Think of the American Civil War, and it is easy to see
what is conveniently missing from the Turkish argument about a
"civil war."

No contemporaneous news report of World War I ever referred to a
"civil war" in the Ottoman Empire, or an "uprising" (unless
Silverglate considers self defense an "uprising"). No history of
World War I has referred to a "civil war." No history of the
20th century has ever indicated that there was a "civil war" in
the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1922.

Silverglate conveniently forgets (perhaps his Turkish clients
forgot, also) that prior to the actual start of the Armenian
Genocide, Turkey undertook a series of laws in preparation - laws
that, incidentally, Hitler wasto copy when he started his plans
for the genocide of Germany's (and, later, Europe's) Jews.

Among these laws were those making the Armenians second-class
citizens, removing Armenians from positions of authority,
planning for the forced relocation of the Armenians (with the
laughable additional provision that what the Armenians left
behind would be protected by the state - later rescinded to allow
Turks and Kurds to take the Armenian property), the disarming of
the Armenians including those young Armenians in the Ottoman Army
(how a disarmed people can start a "civil war" is conveniently
left unanswered), the preparation of a list of prominent Armenian
leaders and professionals (including two members of the Turkish
Parliament) who were to be rounded-up and killed prior to the
start of the actual mass murder. All of the above - and more -
constitute planning; planning constitutes intent; intent
constitutes guilt.

All of these and more have been documented by non-Armenians,
including Turkey's World War I allies Germany and Austro-Hungary.

Apparently attempting to dazzle his readers with fancy footwork
and smoke and mirrors, Silverglate brings in pronouncements from
distinguished jurists on the importance of "free speech" in our
society - a fact that no onewould question.

However, "free speech" is not the issue in the matter of the
Armenian Genocide. If Silverglate wishes to state that there was
no Armenian Genocide, that is his right, and I would defend that
right for him. If his Turkish clients wish to buy radio or
television time or create a radio or television series of
programs and deny the Armenian Genocide, that, too, is his and
their right and that, too, I would defend.

However, the First Amendment protection against the restriction
of "free speech" by Congress, while it ensures Silverglate's
right to "free speech," doesn't carry with it the obligation or
the requirement for anyone else to listen, and, certainly, it
doesn't establish (or protect) the right to teach a distortion of
truth and a denial of history to school children.

The Armenian Genocide - the events that took place between 1915
and1922 - is a fact of history, and its denial flies in the face
of so much evidence that to couple that denial with "free speech"
would make a mockery of the First Amendment.

The simple fact is that there was an Armenian Genocide by the
Ottoman Turks, as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on
Genocide. Silverglate's case is without merit and should be
dismissed. If not dismissed, its plea should bedenied.

Andrew Kevorkian
Philadelphia, Pa.

[Gavur]

Suit opens old wounds

Teacher, student seek all views in 1915 deaths of 1m Armenians
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | December 27, 2005

History teacher Bill Schechter and high school senior Ted Griswold believe their lawsuit is about a worthy and innocent educational principle: presenting different views of a tricky and disputed historical topic. The Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School teacher and his student believe that when Massachusetts high school students learn about the deaths of at least 1 million Armenians in Turkey during the early part of the 20th century, they should be taught that, while many historians call it a genocide, there are some who disagree.


Armenians caught up in those horrific events and their descendants, the lawsuit dishonors the people who died in massacres and forced deportations committed by the Turks. They say presenting opposing views of those events is like denying the Holocaust or saying the earth is flat. And they say the case has reopened a battle many Armenians in Massachusetts thought they had already won.

''It is a major insult to those who died during the genocide, and for those survivors who are now listening to this being questioned," said Aram Chobanian, president emeritus of Boston University, whose grandfather and great-grandfather were killed during that period. ''You bring back these memories to these people, the trauma and the horrible experiences. . . . There is no dispute in terms of whether it is a genocide or not. It is an affront that it's still being questioned."

At issue are events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, in which more than 1 million Armenians died and many more were driven from their homes in what is now Turkey. Armenians have long maintained that the deaths and deportations were the results of a concerted effort by the Turks to eradicate them -- genocide. Many historians, and some European nations, agree with them.

Although the US government has stopped short of calling the events of 1915 genocide, Massachusetts lawmakers have been far friendlier to the Armenian position. In the Commonwealth, home to about 30,000 Armenians, state legislators established a day of remembrance for victims of the Armenian genocide. The Globe once prohibited the use of the word genocide to describe the 1915 events, but now allows the use of the term.

But the Turkish government, and some US historians, say the Armenian deaths and deportations should not be labeled genocide. They argue that the violence and upheavals came in the context of a war that brought great loss of life on all sides, and that the killings were a response to a massive armed rebellion by Armenians that began before the war broke out.

''There was killing on both sides and both sides have suffered. . . . But what happened does not fit the definition of genocide," said Narguiz Abbaszade, executive director of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations.Continued...

In the suit, Schechter, Griswold and the other plaintiffs, which include the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, argue that those views should be made available to the state's high school students. Central to their case is the claim that the Department of Education had included other viewpoints on the Armenian genocide in its 1999 curriculum guide, then removed them under political pressure from Armenians and their supporters on Beacon Hill, including Senator Steven A. Tolman, who represents Watertown, home to many Armenians. That amounts to censorship, said Harvey Silverglate, the attorney who represents the plaintiffs.

''After having decided it was educationally suitable to include both sides, the Department of Education succumbed to political pressure from a legislator and censored it out," Silverglate said. ''That is unconstitutional."

But Schechter, Griswold, and the other plaintiffs say they are not trying to take a position on how the events should be classified, much less add to Armenians' suffering.

''This is a censorship case, not a historical controversy," Silverglate said.

They say their aim is merely to protect students' right to understand that what happened to Armenians is still a matter of historical dispute.

''There are a great majority of people who consider it a genocide, but a small minority do not think of it as genocide," Griswold said. ''The government shouldn't be deciding or legislating historical truth. It should be done by scholars, teachers, and students."

The removal of dissenting viewpoints on the Armenian genocide from the curriculum guide is an example of the government ''arrogating to itself the right to determine what is true and what is not true," Schechter said. ''We can give students different points of view, and certainly not remove one point of view because of political pressure. [Otherwise], it's a slippery slope."

Omitting dissenting views on the Armenian genocide, he said, is something the Communist regime of the former Soviet Union might have done.

But Erwin Chemerinsky, a lawyer for the Department of Education, says that under state and federal law the government decides what is taught in state schools.

''If the government wants to teach the Holocaust happened, Holocaust deniers don't get to go to court and say it didn't," said Chemerinsky, who is also a professor of law at Duke University. ''If the government wants to teach the earth is round, the flat earth society doesn't get to go to court and say it isn't. . . . If a group that doesn't like a curriculum can challenge it like this, then there are no limits to the lawsuits that can be brought."

Schechter counters that neither Holocaust deniers nor flat-earthers have any credibility, while several respected historians, including Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, believe the suffering of the Armenians does not qualify as genocide.

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who is fighting the suit on behalf of the Department of Education, filed a motion Friday to have the case dismissed. His lawyers argue that the First Amendment cannot be applied to statements by the government, including curriculum guidelines. Also, they say, the statute of limitations on the case has expired.

Earlier last week, Chemerinsky filed a motion to have Armenian survivors and their supporters added as defendants in the case. Among them is John Kasparian, 98, who lived through those years, and says he narrowly escaped death when his family fled his village hours before Turks gathered all of the Armenians in a barn and set it alight.

For Kasparian, the dispute comes down to something more fundamental than such philosophical considerations as the first amendment and who should be deciding historical truth.

Kasparian said he is living proof that the Turkish version of the genocide is false.

''I am here," he said. ''It's a genocide. We've got proof it happened, black and white."

Griswold, Schechter, and Silverglate have repeatedly said they take no position on whether the Armenian deaths constitute genocide.

Settling the historical record is irrelevant, they say, and their only concern is protecting free speech.

''We do not deny it was a genocide," Silverglate said. ''We don't get to that point. The whole point is to allow students and teachers to discuss whether it is or it isn't."

Survivors say even debating whether genocide took place is an affront.

''It is not something that should be decided by the students," said Armine Dedekian, whose family fled the Turks three times, and who lost many family members to the violence and chaos. ''I was 1 year old when they killed my father. I have never seen him. It happened. It has been decided."

Yvonne Abraham can be reached at [email protected].

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Gavur]

Ancem: Genocide Curriculum On Trial

Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts
47 Nichols Avenue
Watertown MA 02472
[email protected]

PRESS RELEASE

For information contact: [email protected]

ANCEM: GENOCIDE CURRICULUM ON TRIAL
Public forum on Massachusetts lawsuit attracts over 200 community activists

Watertown, MA ---Over two hundred members of the Armenian American and Greek
American community attended a public forum organized by the Armenian
National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts (ANCEM), on Tuesday, February 7,
to hear about the Massachusetts lawsuit pending in Federal Court challenging
the right of the state's Board of Education to design a genocide and human
rights curriculum for public school students. Also attending the forum were
Watertown Town Councilors Marilyn Petitto Devaney and Angie Kounelis.

Genocide Curriculum on Trial: A Public Forum focused on the recent lawsuit
filed against the state of Massachusetts, alleging that the State's Board of
Education improperly removed resources that denied the Armenian Genocide in
its genocide and human rights curriculum guide.

Presenting at the forum were Massachusetts State Senator Steven Tolman and
former Massachusetts State Senator Warren Tolman, authors of the original
1998 legislation calling for the Massachusetts Board of Education to create
a curriculum to teach genocide and human rights in Massachusetts schools;
State Representative Peter Koutoujian; and Kate Nahabedian, Government
Relations Director of the Armenian National Committee of America. Dikran
Kaligian, PhD, Chairperson of the Armenian National Committee of America
Eastern United States moderated the panel.

Kaligian opened the evening with a brief introduction announcing that Bill
Schechter, a teacher at Lincoln Sudbury Regional High School and one of the
plaintiffs in the law suit, who was originally slated to participate in the
forum, had in fact cancelled his participation and would not be present.

Kaligian then introduced State Senator Steven Tolman, who presented an
overview of the original legislation process acknowledging that State
Representatives Peter Koutoujian and Rachel Kaprielian played important
leadership roles.

`Hearing the stories about what happened in the early part of the last
century I certainly knew about it, there was a never question in my mind,'
stated Tolman in introducing how the concept arose that a genocide and human
rights curriculum should be developed and that it should be taught in public
schools.

Tolman explained in great detail the legislative process that the bill
encountered in 1998, noting that the original bill was slated to be a
mandatory curriculum and that it got stuck temporarily in a legislative
process until Tolman called for a debate on the bill, bringing about the
needed pressure for a vote. A compromise was then made to remove the
mandatory element, in light of the fact that there are very few mandatory
components to the Massachusetts curriculum, and the bill then moved to final
passage.

Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Court 1998 became law in August
1998 requiring the board of education to `formulate recommendations on
curricular material on genocide and human rights issues, and guidelines for
the teaching of such material. Said material and guidelines may include, but
shall not be limited to, the period of the transatlantic slave trade and the
middle passage, the great hunger period in Ireland, the Armenian genocide,
the holocaust and the Mussolini fascist regime and other recognized human
rights violations and genocides.'

Tolman then explained the underhanded behind-the-scenes work of the Turkish
lobby that then proceeded, including pressuring the Board of Education to
include websites denying the Armenian Genocide.

On June 1999 the Massachusetts Board of Ed curriculum released its final
Massachusetts Guide to Choosing and Using Curricular Materials on Genocide
and Human Rights Issues which did not include the four Turkish denialists'
websites now the focus of the pending lawsuit.

Tolman noted the firm position of Board of Education Commissioner Driscoll
who wrote a letter stating that the Legislative intent was to address the
Armenian Genocide--not deny it--and that the statute in fact forced the
board of education to remove the Turkish denialists' websites.

`This is learning about history,' stated Tolman. `I was outraged when I
learned about the inclusion of the websites in one of the drafts.' Tolman
then met with the Governor and told him that we would not allow this about
the Jewish Holocaust and that we `can not say it about the Armenian
Genocide.' Tolman added that the legislation was enacted under the knowledge
that `those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.'

Kaligian then introduced former state Senator Warren Tolman, also an author
of the original legislation, who explained that the opponents of this
legislation would try to portray this as a violation of freedom of speech
that somehow we are trying to prevent people from talking about things that
they want to talk about. Tolman added that we `are not trying to do that at
all. We are only trying to represent the truth. And, just as the people who
are opposing our efforts here would not suggest that the Jewish Holocaust
did not take place, nor should they suggest that 1.5 million Armenians were
not similarly persecuted. This is no more in dispute than the Jewish
Holocaust.' Tolman added that there are in fact limitations on freedom of
speech.

Tolman commended Attorney General Tom Reilly for `fighting this and taking
this vigorously.'

Tolman also shared one of his own experiences by telling the audience one of
the ways he learned about the Armenian Genocide. He reflected on meeting one
of his neighbors, an Armenian Genocide survivor named Leon Krikorian, who
told him the story of his own survival. `Sadly Leon is not here anymore and
I know that there are not enough Leon Krikorians to tell their stories to
every person who might doubt history. It is up to all of us to tell Leon's
story,' stated Tolman, `It is up to all of us to tell the stories of other
family members.'

Tolman also advised the audience that it is important to remind people that
the purpose behind the legislation was that the most horrific events in
mankind ought to be taught to our students so that if those students see
that intolerance in any form at any time in their lives, they will speak out
against it. `It is important to teach our next generations to remain ever
vigilant,' stated Tolman, `so that it never happens again.'

Kaligian then briefly reported on the efforts of the Armenian community from
1998 through the present, including the ANC's grassroots efforts through a
postcard and telephone drive to help ensure passage of the original
legislation in 1998, which eventually passed unanimously in both the House
and the Senate and was then signed by Governor Paul Cellucci. The ANC
testified at hearings providing background material on the Armenian
Genocide. And, Kaligian noted, the ANC was vigilant in responding to the
Turkish lobbies efforts to include denialist materials in the curriculum
guidelines.

State Representative Peter Koutoujian was then invited to the podium.
Koutoujian explained that this is one of the most frustrating experiences
that he has encountered as a legislator.

Koutoujian told the audience that he believes `that this lawsuit will be
dismissed' and that he hopes it will be sooner rather than later. He added
that there `is an argument that there was political pressure laid to bear
[to remove the Turkish websites], I don't believe this is true.'

Koutoujian reminded the audience that `there can be no denial. There can be
no alternative theory because, if we allow this, then we not only minimize
what happened to us, and to the Jews in the Holocaust, and in Rwanda and
what is happening in Darfur right now and to any genocide that will happen
in the future if we fail to learn.'

Before introducing the next speaker, Kaligian then noted some of the work
that has been done since learning of the lawsuit. Several Op Ed pieces and
letters to the editor were written in several media outlets.

Kaligian then introduced ANCA Government Relations Director Kate Nahabedian,
who previously worked with a civil rights division at the Department of
Justice. Nahabedian outlined both the legal process and some of the legal
issues of the lawsuit, further explaining some of the points of the state's
motion to dismiss the case.

Nahabedian noted that one of the points was a motion to dismiss based on the
statute of limitations, which is three years on this kind of case. The
guidelines were released in 1999 and the case was brought in 2005.

Nahabedian then clearly outlined that this case is absolutely not a case of
infringing on freedom of speech because the guide is not mandatory. The
state is merely making recommendation. `You have a first amendment right to
speak,' she continued. `But you do not have a first amendment right to force
someone to, or not to, speak in a certain way.'

Nahabedian reminded the audience that the Supreme Court has ruled that
states have broad discretion to design curriculum. She also noted that the
court case cited by the plaintiffs actually is clear in several points
contrary to the plaintiff's own motion including the fact that there was no
state law mandating the writing of a curriculum

Nahabedian noted another distinction between the court case the plaintiffs'
use as precedent in their original motion and this case explaining that the
books that were removed from the library in the first case were properly
acquired by the school library as opposed to the web sites in this case
which were not acquired properly. The websites in this case were included as
a result of heaving lobbying by Turkish groups. This is also significant
because in news reports, the plaintiffs have inaccurately suggested that the
websites were actually included in the original guidelines and later removed
as a result of political pressure.

A lengthy question and answer period ensued.

An impromptu visit by Pamela Hurd, a parent at Lincoln Sudbury Regional High
School, was then received. This case is `important to me because I have two
students at the school...and they need to learn history. Denialist material
isn't history. It is not historical record,' stated Hurd. She also noted
that there are fabulous teachers at the school who are in no means in
agreement with this teacher, noting that several teachers have been trained
by Facing History and Ourselves. `Not everyone is in agreement with this
particular teacher,' she added.

Steven Tolman answered a final question by the audience by stating that `We
should stop at nothing. This should not be taken lightly.' He added that we
should stand `together to ensure that justice prevails.'

`Hearing the community's interest and the commitment of so many people
prepared to see this case through helped alleviate much of the anxiety
created by this case,' stated Sharistan Ardhaldjian, of the ANCEM. `While
this case speaks so profoundly to the denial that has deep roots in the
government of Turkey's own state policies, knowing that many people are
committed to creating a tolerant society is remarkably powerful. As
residents of this state we continue to look to Attorney General Tom Reilly's
leadership and commitment to stand firmly behind the Board of Education's
right to accurately educate our students.'

`This trial is not about freedom of speech, as the plaintiffs would have us
believe. When deniers of the Jewish Holocaust would ask us to teach our
students that there wasn't a Holocaust or when deniers of the American slave
trade would attempt to teach our students that the slave trade didn't really
occur, we would stand firmly behind the Board of Education as it implemented
its mandate to accurately educate our students,' Ardhaldjian continued.
`Unfortunately, the plaintiffs in this case, willingly or unwillingly, have
utilized one of our most sacred freedoms, the freedom of speech, to disguise
the continuation of something we in the Armenian American community have
come to know very well: denial. There are still those who will distort and
deny history claiming that the government of Turkey did not commit Genocide
against an entire population at the turn of the last century. We do not want
students to learn from this kind of hatred.'

In October 2005, two teachers, a student and his parent, and the Assembly of
Turkish American Associations (ATAA), a Washington-based Turkish
organization, filed a lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts, alleging
that the First Amendment rights of teachers and students had been violated.
The lawsuit, now pending in Federal Court, has been the topic of wide
discussion throughout the media.

[Gavur]

JCRC joins battle for genocide recognition

JCRC joins battle for genocide recognition
By Ted Siefer - Thursday April 27 2006

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/news/?content_id=1179

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly Local Jewish groups back teaching the Armenian genocide in public schools

The Jewish Community Relations Council has firmly allied itself with the Armenian community in its fight against a lawsuit challenging the way the Armenian genocide is taught in Massachusetts public schools.


Coinciding with the anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide in 1915, a rally organized by kNOw Genocide, a coalition of several cultural and religious groups, including JCRC, was held last week in front of the State House. Among the speakers at the event were Lt. Governor Kerry Healy and Attorney General Tom Reilly, both gubernatorial candidates, and Congressman Ed Markey.
“We have to defend the right of the Department of Education to teach what happened to the Armenians. This is not about free speech. It’s about facing truth,” Reilly told the crowd. The attorney general’s office is defending the Department of Education in the lawsuit brought by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations.
About 1.5 million Armenians were killed during World War I by Turkish forces; Turkey has long contended that the deaths were the unintended consequences of war, not a deliberate campaign against Armenians.
The Turkish association’s lawsuit charges the Department of Education with violating academic freedom and free speech by removing from its curriculum guide materials that presented the Turkish point of view on the genocide.
Lawyer and academic freedom advocate Harvey Silverglate is representing the Turkish Association. “I believe that in the long run the Jewish organizations, as well as the Armenian organizations and all other organizations currently on the ‘censor the contra-genocide views’ bandwagon, will be sorry that they have contributed to the institutionalization of ethnic group censorship in matters of education,” he said.
JCRC Executive Director Nancy Kaufman rejected this argument. “I think it’s bogus. Does this mean we should let the KKK teach in schools because they want to share their view of slavery?” she said. “What if someone had wanted to make room for a Holocaust denier in a textbook? We in the Jewish community have to be sensitive to genocide, whether the Rwandan, Jewish or right now in Sudan.”
This point was emphasized by speakers at last week’s rally, which prompted a contingent of pro-Palestinian activists to shout: “Stop the Zionist invasion of Sudan.”
The Armenian genocide is widely recognized by scholars. Last year, the International Association of Genocide Scholars sent a letter to the Turkish president urging the country to reexamine its version of the catastrophe.
A bill introduced earlier this month in the House (H.R. 193) and Senate (S. 164) would include language recognizing the Armenian genocide as part of a commemoration of the 15th anniversary of the U.S.’s adoption of the Genocide Convention. The U.S. does not officially recognize the Armenian genocide.
A documentary titled “The Armenian Genocide,” narrated by Julianna Margulies, was screened on Capitol Hill shortly before the bills were introduced. The documentary aired on PBS this month.
There are many significant connections between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, according to Adam Strom. His organization, Facing History and Ourselves, provides curriculum materials for teaching about historical atrocities, including the Armenian genocide.
Strom pointed out that Hitler cited the world’s indifference to the Armenian genocide as he laid the groundwork for the Holocaust. “Hitler said: ‘Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?’” Strom noted.
Jews have long played an important role in calling for recognition of the atrocity and justice for its victims, Strom said. He pointed to the role of Rafael Lemkin, who defined the term “genocide” in a treatise on the subject that would become a cornerstone of human rights law.
“He lobbied for years to find a way to outlaw what happened to the Armenians. He asked his law professor, ‘Why can’t they put these guys on trial, why is it not against the law to murder a million people but it is to kill just one?’” said Strom.
Strom also pointed to the role of Henry Morgenthau, the Jewish U.S. ambassador to Turkey during World War I who railed against the anti-Armenian campaign.
Morgenthau is revered in Armenia, according to David Sacks, a Boston doctor who helped set up a women’s clinic in the newly independent republic in the 1990s.
Sacks said that in his time spent in Armenia, he found many qualities of the people familiar. “Their love of family and culture … reminded me of our people,” he said.
“We need to honor their pain and suffering and we need to remind the world that there was more than one Holocaust,” Sacks added.