Tweet
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/31/judge_rejects_suit_against_u_of_minnesota_over_web site_on_genocide
Inside Higher Ed
Unusual Ruling for Academic Freedom
March 31, 2011
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a lawsuit against the University
of Minnesota over the website of one of its centers -- and the right of
that center to deem another website "unreliable."
At one level the suit focused on history and the dispute over why so
many Armenians were killed during World War I. But more broadly, the
case involved two competing claims of academic freedom.
The website of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
makes clear that its faculty members believe (consistent with the
consensus view of historians) that what happened to the Armenians was a
genocide. Many Turkish groups disagree, and the suit was sparked by the
university's labeling of the information on the Turkish Coalition of
America's website as "unreliable." The group sued, arguing that the
label amounted to an unfair endorsement by the university of a specific
position -- and that doing so discouraged students and faculty members
from asserting other points of view, in violation of the principles of
academic freedom.
Judge Donovan W. Frank found that academic freedom issues were central
to the case -- but he sided with the University of Minnesota, which
argued that its faculty members had the right to express their views on
the genocide center's website -- including views criticizing websites
that argue against the certainty of an Armenian genocide.
"The court concludes that this case is properly viewed in the context of
academic freedom and that defendants' statements are protected by that
freedom," Judge Frank wrote. "The CHGS [the genocide studies center] is
free to indicate to students that it thinks certain websites are not
proper sources for scholarly research. The ability of the university and
its faculty to determine the reliability of sources available to
students to use in their research falls squarely within the university's
freedom to determine how particular coursework shall be taught. The CHGS
also acknowledges their viewpoint that the killing of Ottoman Armenians
during World War I was genocide. This viewpoint, as well, is within the
purview of the university's academic freedom to comment on and critique
academic views held and expressed by others."
Mark B. Rotenberg, general counsel for Minnesota, said that the ruling
was unusual in that it was decided strictly on the issue of academic
freedom. Many federal court rulings, he noted, refer to academic freedom
but are based in the end on the First Amendment, due process or other
legal rights.
"We see this as a highly significant federal decision involving academic
freedom, since there are so few cases that are decided squarely on the
principle of academic freedom," he said.
Rotenberg said that, had the Turkish Coalition of America been
successful, the ramifications could have extended well beyond Minnesota
or scholars of the Armenian genocide. Any time that faculty members or a
research center shared views that others might contest, a university
could have been at risk of being sued, he said. Instead, a federal judge
has affirmed that "faculties don't have to be completely neutral in
expressing their views of others' scholarly writing, and that they can
have a perspective that advocates one academic perspective over
another.... This is a very important vindication for academic freedom."
Bruce Fein, one of the lawyers for the Turkish Coalition of America,
said that the group was still studying the decision and had not decided
whether to appeal. Fein said that the judge "did not address the
substance of our arguments" and seemed to accept the University of
Minnesota's claims about its views of academic freedom. Fein said that,
in his view, "academic freedom was a pretense in trying to indoctrinate
rather than educate." He said that, in the name of academic freedom, the
university was trying "to impose an orthodoxy."
The university and its defenders have responded by saying that Minnesota
has never banned anyone from doing research or expressing ideas such as
those of the Turkish Coalition with regard to what happened to the
Armenians. But that does not mean, Minnesota has argued, that its
faculty members and research centers can't express a view on the issue.
Several scholarly associations -- the International Association of
Genocide Scholars, the Middle East Studies Association and the Society
for Armenian Studies -- opposed the suit.
In a public letter to the coalition, the Middle East studies group said:
"Your organization, and those who hold perspectives different from those
expressed by scholars associated with the Center, certainly have the
right to participate in open scholarly exchange on the history of the
Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire or any other issue, by presenting
their views at academic conferences, in the pages of peer-reviewed
scholarly journals or by other means, thereby opening them up to debate
and challenge. We are distressed that you instead chose to take legal
action against the University of Minnesota and its Center for Holocaust
and Genocide Studies, apparently for having at one point characterized
views expressed on your website in a certain way. We fear that legal
action of this kind may have a chilling effect on the ability of
scholars and academic institutions to carry out their work freely and to
have their work assessed on its merits, in conformity with standards and
procedures long established in the world of scholarship. Your lawsuit
may thus serve to stifle the free expression of ideas among scholars and
academic institutions regarding the history of Armenians in the later
Ottoman Empire, and thereby undermine the principles of academic
freedom."
- Scott Jaschik
From: A. Papazian
Inside Higher Ed
Unusual Ruling for Academic Freedom
March 31, 2011
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a lawsuit against the University
of Minnesota over the website of one of its centers -- and the right of
that center to deem another website "unreliable."
At one level the suit focused on history and the dispute over why so
many Armenians were killed during World War I. But more broadly, the
case involved two competing claims of academic freedom.
The website of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
makes clear that its faculty members believe (consistent with the
consensus view of historians) that what happened to the Armenians was a
genocide. Many Turkish groups disagree, and the suit was sparked by the
university's labeling of the information on the Turkish Coalition of
America's website as "unreliable." The group sued, arguing that the
label amounted to an unfair endorsement by the university of a specific
position -- and that doing so discouraged students and faculty members
from asserting other points of view, in violation of the principles of
academic freedom.
Judge Donovan W. Frank found that academic freedom issues were central
to the case -- but he sided with the University of Minnesota, which
argued that its faculty members had the right to express their views on
the genocide center's website -- including views criticizing websites
that argue against the certainty of an Armenian genocide.
"The court concludes that this case is properly viewed in the context of
academic freedom and that defendants' statements are protected by that
freedom," Judge Frank wrote. "The CHGS [the genocide studies center] is
free to indicate to students that it thinks certain websites are not
proper sources for scholarly research. The ability of the university and
its faculty to determine the reliability of sources available to
students to use in their research falls squarely within the university's
freedom to determine how particular coursework shall be taught. The CHGS
also acknowledges their viewpoint that the killing of Ottoman Armenians
during World War I was genocide. This viewpoint, as well, is within the
purview of the university's academic freedom to comment on and critique
academic views held and expressed by others."
Mark B. Rotenberg, general counsel for Minnesota, said that the ruling
was unusual in that it was decided strictly on the issue of academic
freedom. Many federal court rulings, he noted, refer to academic freedom
but are based in the end on the First Amendment, due process or other
legal rights.
"We see this as a highly significant federal decision involving academic
freedom, since there are so few cases that are decided squarely on the
principle of academic freedom," he said.
Rotenberg said that, had the Turkish Coalition of America been
successful, the ramifications could have extended well beyond Minnesota
or scholars of the Armenian genocide. Any time that faculty members or a
research center shared views that others might contest, a university
could have been at risk of being sued, he said. Instead, a federal judge
has affirmed that "faculties don't have to be completely neutral in
expressing their views of others' scholarly writing, and that they can
have a perspective that advocates one academic perspective over
another.... This is a very important vindication for academic freedom."
Bruce Fein, one of the lawyers for the Turkish Coalition of America,
said that the group was still studying the decision and had not decided
whether to appeal. Fein said that the judge "did not address the
substance of our arguments" and seemed to accept the University of
Minnesota's claims about its views of academic freedom. Fein said that,
in his view, "academic freedom was a pretense in trying to indoctrinate
rather than educate." He said that, in the name of academic freedom, the
university was trying "to impose an orthodoxy."
The university and its defenders have responded by saying that Minnesota
has never banned anyone from doing research or expressing ideas such as
those of the Turkish Coalition with regard to what happened to the
Armenians. But that does not mean, Minnesota has argued, that its
faculty members and research centers can't express a view on the issue.
Several scholarly associations -- the International Association of
Genocide Scholars, the Middle East Studies Association and the Society
for Armenian Studies -- opposed the suit.
In a public letter to the coalition, the Middle East studies group said:
"Your organization, and those who hold perspectives different from those
expressed by scholars associated with the Center, certainly have the
right to participate in open scholarly exchange on the history of the
Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire or any other issue, by presenting
their views at academic conferences, in the pages of peer-reviewed
scholarly journals or by other means, thereby opening them up to debate
and challenge. We are distressed that you instead chose to take legal
action against the University of Minnesota and its Center for Holocaust
and Genocide Studies, apparently for having at one point characterized
views expressed on your website in a certain way. We fear that legal
action of this kind may have a chilling effect on the ability of
scholars and academic institutions to carry out their work freely and to
have their work assessed on its merits, in conformity with standards and
procedures long established in the world of scholarship. Your lawsuit
may thus serve to stifle the free expression of ideas among scholars and
academic institutions regarding the history of Armenians in the later
Ottoman Empire, and thereby undermine the principles of academic
freedom."
- Scott Jaschik
From: A. Papazian