Tweet
Chicago Tribune, United States -
1915 killings of Armenians stokes Georgetown furor on academic freedom
July 6, 2008
By Susan Kinzie
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The issue that has roiled U.S.-Turkish relations in
recent months ' how to characterize the mass killings of Armenians in
1915 ' has set off a dispute over politics and academic freedom at an
institute housed at Georgetown University.
Several board members of the Institute of Turkish Studies have
resigned this summer, protesting the ouster of a board chairman who
wrote that scholars should research, rather than avoid, what he
characterized as an Armenian genocide.
Within weeks of writing about the matter in late 2006, Binghamton
University professor Donald Quataert resigned from the board of
governors, saying the Turkish ambassador to the United States told him
he had angered some political leaders in Ankara and that they had
threatened to revoke the institute's funding.
After a prominent association of Middle Eastern scholars learned about
it, they wrote a letter in May to the institute, the Turkish prime
minister and other leaders asking that Quataert be reinstated and
money for the institute be put in an irrevocable trust to avoid
political influence.
The ambassador of the Republic of Turkey, H.E. Nabi Sensoy, denied
that he had any role in Quataert's resignation. In a written
statement, he said that claims that he urged Quataert to leave are
unfounded and misleading.
The dispute shows the tensions between money and scholarship, and the
impact language can have on historical understanding.
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed when the Ottoman Empire
collapsed after World War I. Armenians and Turks bitterly disagree
over whether it was a campaign of genocide, or a civil war in which
many Turks were also killed.
In the fall, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
championed a bill that would characterize the events of 1915 to 1917
as genocide, the Bush administration fought it and several former
defense secretaries warned that Turkish leaders would limit
U.S. access to a military base needed for the war in Iraq.
The Turkish studies institute, founded in 1983, is independent from
Georgetown University, but Executive Director David Cuthell teaches a
course there in exchange for space on campus.
Julie Green Bataille, a university spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail,
"We will review this matter consistent with the importance of academic
freedom and the fact that the institute is independently funded and
governed."
The institute's funding, a $3 million grant, is entirely from Turkey.
A few years ago, Quataert said, members of the board checked on what
they thought was an irrevocable blind trust "and to our surprise it
turned out to be a gift that could be revoked by the Turkish
government."
Quataert, a professor of history, said the institute has funded good
scholarship without political influence. The selection of which
studies to support is done by a committee of academics on the
associate board, he said, and approved by the board, which includes
business and political leaders. Never once, he said, did he think a
grant application was judged on anything other than its academic
merits.
He also noted that during his time there, no one applied for grants
that would have been controversial in Turkey. Asked if any of the
research characterized the events as genocide, Cuthell said, "My gut
is no. It's that third rail."
Roger Smith, professor emeritus of government at the College of
William and Mary, questioned whether the non-profit institute deserves
its tax-exempt status if there is political influence ' and whether it
is an undeclared lobbying arm for the Turkish government.
Cuthell said none of the institute's critics ever bothered to check
the truth of Quataert's account with the institute: It does not lobby,
Cuthell said, and "the allegations of academic freedom simply don't
hold up."
The controversy began quietly in late 2006 with a review of historian
Donald Bloxham's book, "The Great Game of Genocide." Quataert wrote
that the slaughter of Armenians has been the elephant in the room of
Ottoman studies. Despite his belief that the term "genocide" had
become a distraction, he said the events met the United Nations
definition of the word.
He sent a letter of resignation to members of the institute in
December 2006, and one board member resigned.
But in the fall, around the same time that Congress was debating the
Armenian question, Quataert was asked to speak at a conference about
what had happened at the institute. He told members of the Middle
Eastern Studies Association that the ambassador told him he must issue
a retraction of his book review or step down ' or put funding for the
institute in jeopardy.
His colleagues were shocked, said Laurie Brand, director of the school
of international relations at the University of Southern California.
Ambassador Sensoy, who is honorary chairman of the institute's board,
said in a statement this week, "Neither the Turkish Government nor I
have ever placed any pressure upon the ITS, for such interference
would have violated the principle of the academic freedom, which we
uphold the most. The Turkish Government and I will be the first to
defend ITS from any such pressure."
Since the May 27 letter from the scholars association was sent,
several associate and full members of the board have left. Marcie
Patton, Resat Kasaba and Kemal Silay resigned; Fatma Muge Gocek said
she would resign, and Birol Yesilada said his primary reason for
stepping down at this time is his health, but that he is concerned
about the conflicting accounts of what had happened. "It's a very
difficult line that scholars walk," Patton said, "especially
post-9/11, especially because of the Iraq war."
AP-NY-07-05-08 1144EDT
http://au.mc386.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose? .rand`9226546&uc=0
1915 killings of Armenians stokes Georgetown furor on academic freedom
July 6, 2008
By Susan Kinzie
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The issue that has roiled U.S.-Turkish relations in
recent months ' how to characterize the mass killings of Armenians in
1915 ' has set off a dispute over politics and academic freedom at an
institute housed at Georgetown University.
Several board members of the Institute of Turkish Studies have
resigned this summer, protesting the ouster of a board chairman who
wrote that scholars should research, rather than avoid, what he
characterized as an Armenian genocide.
Within weeks of writing about the matter in late 2006, Binghamton
University professor Donald Quataert resigned from the board of
governors, saying the Turkish ambassador to the United States told him
he had angered some political leaders in Ankara and that they had
threatened to revoke the institute's funding.
After a prominent association of Middle Eastern scholars learned about
it, they wrote a letter in May to the institute, the Turkish prime
minister and other leaders asking that Quataert be reinstated and
money for the institute be put in an irrevocable trust to avoid
political influence.
The ambassador of the Republic of Turkey, H.E. Nabi Sensoy, denied
that he had any role in Quataert's resignation. In a written
statement, he said that claims that he urged Quataert to leave are
unfounded and misleading.
The dispute shows the tensions between money and scholarship, and the
impact language can have on historical understanding.
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed when the Ottoman Empire
collapsed after World War I. Armenians and Turks bitterly disagree
over whether it was a campaign of genocide, or a civil war in which
many Turks were also killed.
In the fall, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
championed a bill that would characterize the events of 1915 to 1917
as genocide, the Bush administration fought it and several former
defense secretaries warned that Turkish leaders would limit
U.S. access to a military base needed for the war in Iraq.
The Turkish studies institute, founded in 1983, is independent from
Georgetown University, but Executive Director David Cuthell teaches a
course there in exchange for space on campus.
Julie Green Bataille, a university spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail,
"We will review this matter consistent with the importance of academic
freedom and the fact that the institute is independently funded and
governed."
The institute's funding, a $3 million grant, is entirely from Turkey.
A few years ago, Quataert said, members of the board checked on what
they thought was an irrevocable blind trust "and to our surprise it
turned out to be a gift that could be revoked by the Turkish
government."
Quataert, a professor of history, said the institute has funded good
scholarship without political influence. The selection of which
studies to support is done by a committee of academics on the
associate board, he said, and approved by the board, which includes
business and political leaders. Never once, he said, did he think a
grant application was judged on anything other than its academic
merits.
He also noted that during his time there, no one applied for grants
that would have been controversial in Turkey. Asked if any of the
research characterized the events as genocide, Cuthell said, "My gut
is no. It's that third rail."
Roger Smith, professor emeritus of government at the College of
William and Mary, questioned whether the non-profit institute deserves
its tax-exempt status if there is political influence ' and whether it
is an undeclared lobbying arm for the Turkish government.
Cuthell said none of the institute's critics ever bothered to check
the truth of Quataert's account with the institute: It does not lobby,
Cuthell said, and "the allegations of academic freedom simply don't
hold up."
The controversy began quietly in late 2006 with a review of historian
Donald Bloxham's book, "The Great Game of Genocide." Quataert wrote
that the slaughter of Armenians has been the elephant in the room of
Ottoman studies. Despite his belief that the term "genocide" had
become a distraction, he said the events met the United Nations
definition of the word.
He sent a letter of resignation to members of the institute in
December 2006, and one board member resigned.
But in the fall, around the same time that Congress was debating the
Armenian question, Quataert was asked to speak at a conference about
what had happened at the institute. He told members of the Middle
Eastern Studies Association that the ambassador told him he must issue
a retraction of his book review or step down ' or put funding for the
institute in jeopardy.
His colleagues were shocked, said Laurie Brand, director of the school
of international relations at the University of Southern California.
Ambassador Sensoy, who is honorary chairman of the institute's board,
said in a statement this week, "Neither the Turkish Government nor I
have ever placed any pressure upon the ITS, for such interference
would have violated the principle of the academic freedom, which we
uphold the most. The Turkish Government and I will be the first to
defend ITS from any such pressure."
Since the May 27 letter from the scholars association was sent,
several associate and full members of the board have left. Marcie
Patton, Resat Kasaba and Kemal Silay resigned; Fatma Muge Gocek said
she would resign, and Birol Yesilada said his primary reason for
stepping down at this time is his health, but that he is concerned
about the conflicting accounts of what had happened. "It's a very
difficult line that scholars walk," Patton said, "especially
post-9/11, especially because of the Iraq war."
AP-NY-07-05-08 1144EDT
http://au.mc386.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose? .rand`9226546&uc=0