Tweet
Boston Globe, MA
June 13 2009
Armenian genocide lawsuit rejected
Judge says no role for court on curriculum guidelines
By Milton J. Valencia
Globe Staff / June 13, 2009
A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit challenging state Department of
Education curriculum guidelines that characterize the mass slaying of
Armenians at the start of World War I as genocide, saying the court
should play no role in deciding on a historic tragedy that remains
under international, sensitive debate.
US District Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf said in a long-awaited ruling
that state and local education systems have the constitutionally
protected right to decide on curriculum as long as it does not
infringe on other rights. He said the lawsuit, filed by several
students and teachers from Massachusetts, and the Assembly of Turkish
America, would be better played out as a public and political debate
in the Legislature, than in the courts.
"Except in limited circumstances, decisions concerning what should be
taught must be made by state and local boards rather than by federal
judges," Wolf said in a detailed, 30-page decision.
The ruling was based strictly on legal grounds, but still Armenian
groups saw it as a "win to beat back the denial of genocide." It is a
contentious issue that has been debated by academics and historians
and still polarizes Turkey and Armenia.
"The government . . . has the absolute right to present this to
students," said Arnold R. Rosenfeld, a Boston-based lawyer who
represented the Armenian Assembly of America. "It's reaffirming the
fact that the Armenian genocide should be taught in schools, so that
people in the future will not tolerate genocide, in whatever country."
But Harvey A. Silverglate, a Cambridge-based free speech lawyer who
filed the suit, said the case was not meant to refute the genocide
assertion but to provide students with the proper curriculum to judge
by themselves. He said neither he nor the students and teachers in the
case have come to any decision in how to characterize the slaughter,
but that he has seen detailed, academic viewpoints on both sides, what
he called a "quintessential" historic debate.
Silverglate argued that the curriculum was developed - without
opposing viewpoints, the key part of the case - because of political
pressure by Armenian groups, rather than on educational merit. The
suit had called for opposing views on the genocide to be included in
the state's curriculum guide for schools that addressed the Armenian
genocide.
"I have no dog in this fight over whether this was genocide or not,"
Silverglate said. "But it's outrageous to delete one side of the
debate, no matter how outraged the other side is." He also said he may
appeal Wolf's ruling.
No one denies the mass killing of Armenians at the hands of the Turks
in 1915, but so-called "contra-genocide" arguments have said the
slayings were the result of other factors, such as war.
In Massachusetts, the issue is the state Department of Education's
curriculum guide on genocide and human rights, which lists several
resources including websites, but does not include any
counter-arguments. The guide was based on a 1998 state law requiring
the development of curriculum on human rights violations including the
"Armenian Genocide."
Initially, Turkish-American groups successfully lobbied to have the
curriculum include counter-arguments, noting the United Nations and
Congress have not decided on the issue. But the inclusion then spurred
outrage from Armenian-American groups, resulting in the removal of the
counter-arguments from the guidelines.
David P. Driscoll, then the education commissioner, removed the
"contra-genocide" arguments, saying the point of the curriculum as
stated in the state law was to teach about the "Armenian Genocide." He
noted at the time that the curriculum was only advisory, however, and
that local school boards could decide how to handle the issue.
J.C. Considine, a spokesman for the state education department, said
yesterday that the curriculum guide remains an advisory. He did say
that the department welcomed the ruling, however, because it asserts
the state's authority in deciding what should be taught in classrooms.
But Bill Schechter, a retired history teacher at Lincoln-Sudbury High
School and an original plaintiff in the case, said his concern was
that the school curriculum was developed by political pressure, rather
than a full accounting of both sides of what remains a contentious
issue.
"I think the issues raised by this case should be important to anyone
. . . who is concerned about historical truth being determined by
pressure, politics, and that's really what the case was about," he
said.
Milton Valencia can be reached at [email protected].
http://www.boston.com/news/l ocal/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/13/armenian_ge nocide_lawsuit_rejected/
June 13 2009
Armenian genocide lawsuit rejected
Judge says no role for court on curriculum guidelines
By Milton J. Valencia
Globe Staff / June 13, 2009
A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit challenging state Department of
Education curriculum guidelines that characterize the mass slaying of
Armenians at the start of World War I as genocide, saying the court
should play no role in deciding on a historic tragedy that remains
under international, sensitive debate.
US District Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf said in a long-awaited ruling
that state and local education systems have the constitutionally
protected right to decide on curriculum as long as it does not
infringe on other rights. He said the lawsuit, filed by several
students and teachers from Massachusetts, and the Assembly of Turkish
America, would be better played out as a public and political debate
in the Legislature, than in the courts.
"Except in limited circumstances, decisions concerning what should be
taught must be made by state and local boards rather than by federal
judges," Wolf said in a detailed, 30-page decision.
The ruling was based strictly on legal grounds, but still Armenian
groups saw it as a "win to beat back the denial of genocide." It is a
contentious issue that has been debated by academics and historians
and still polarizes Turkey and Armenia.
"The government . . . has the absolute right to present this to
students," said Arnold R. Rosenfeld, a Boston-based lawyer who
represented the Armenian Assembly of America. "It's reaffirming the
fact that the Armenian genocide should be taught in schools, so that
people in the future will not tolerate genocide, in whatever country."
But Harvey A. Silverglate, a Cambridge-based free speech lawyer who
filed the suit, said the case was not meant to refute the genocide
assertion but to provide students with the proper curriculum to judge
by themselves. He said neither he nor the students and teachers in the
case have come to any decision in how to characterize the slaughter,
but that he has seen detailed, academic viewpoints on both sides, what
he called a "quintessential" historic debate.
Silverglate argued that the curriculum was developed - without
opposing viewpoints, the key part of the case - because of political
pressure by Armenian groups, rather than on educational merit. The
suit had called for opposing views on the genocide to be included in
the state's curriculum guide for schools that addressed the Armenian
genocide.
"I have no dog in this fight over whether this was genocide or not,"
Silverglate said. "But it's outrageous to delete one side of the
debate, no matter how outraged the other side is." He also said he may
appeal Wolf's ruling.
No one denies the mass killing of Armenians at the hands of the Turks
in 1915, but so-called "contra-genocide" arguments have said the
slayings were the result of other factors, such as war.
In Massachusetts, the issue is the state Department of Education's
curriculum guide on genocide and human rights, which lists several
resources including websites, but does not include any
counter-arguments. The guide was based on a 1998 state law requiring
the development of curriculum on human rights violations including the
"Armenian Genocide."
Initially, Turkish-American groups successfully lobbied to have the
curriculum include counter-arguments, noting the United Nations and
Congress have not decided on the issue. But the inclusion then spurred
outrage from Armenian-American groups, resulting in the removal of the
counter-arguments from the guidelines.
David P. Driscoll, then the education commissioner, removed the
"contra-genocide" arguments, saying the point of the curriculum as
stated in the state law was to teach about the "Armenian Genocide." He
noted at the time that the curriculum was only advisory, however, and
that local school boards could decide how to handle the issue.
J.C. Considine, a spokesman for the state education department, said
yesterday that the curriculum guide remains an advisory. He did say
that the department welcomed the ruling, however, because it asserts
the state's authority in deciding what should be taught in classrooms.
But Bill Schechter, a retired history teacher at Lincoln-Sudbury High
School and an original plaintiff in the case, said his concern was
that the school curriculum was developed by political pressure, rather
than a full accounting of both sides of what remains a contentious
issue.
"I think the issues raised by this case should be important to anyone
. . . who is concerned about historical truth being determined by
pressure, politics, and that's really what the case was about," he
said.
Milton Valencia can be reached at [email protected].
http://www.boston.com/news/l ocal/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/13/armenian_ge nocide_lawsuit_rejected/