AGMI Director Edita Gzoyan with Vice-President JD Vance and the Second Lady, Usha Vance on Feb. 10

BY GEVORG VARDANYAN

Gevorg Vardanyan

Recently Armenia’s Education Minister Zhanna Andreasyan dismissed Dr. Edita Gzoyan from her position as Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute. This strange decision has confused and bewildered Armenia’s academic community. It appears arbitrary, ignoring and trampling over the opinion of the AGMI staff, who had collectively opposed it. Moreover, the scholar members of the Board of Trustees firmly stood against it. In protest, the chairman of the board, prominent French Armenian historian Raymond Kevorkian resigned, followed by board members Harutyun Marutyan, Hranush Kharatyan, and Stephan Astourian.

The young and ambitious scholar Edita Gzoyan had been elected to the position two years ago. Earning a doctorate in International Relations from Yerevan State University, a master’s in law from the American University of Armenia, and training in numerous professional courses at prestigious Western universities, the new director had implemented noticeable reforms in the museum’s scientific and administrative management.

The scientific achievements were revolutionary. Not only in terms of productivity per researcher, but also in terms of quality. The AGMI became unmatched. For the first time in the history of the Republic of Armenia, a scientific institution began systematically producing results that met elite Western standards.

Additionally, nearly a year ago the official website of the Ministry of Education proudly announced that the museum’s journal, “International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies”, had been included in the Scopus database, becoming the first historical/social science journal from Armenia to do so. Research into the many details of genocide, studies on the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh, professionalization of museology were among a few of the numerous unprecedented achievements. Many history departments at Western universities would dream of such productivity.

This would not have been possible without Gzoyan’s exceptional managerial abilities. Strategic planning and proactive leadership were accompanied by an attitude that respected academic freedom and political pluralism. From hosting official delegations at a high level to working with schoolchildren from the provinces, everything was done with dedication and care. Sensing the spirit of teamwork was easy and all were appreciated and valued for their abilities.

After listing all this, the simple question arises: why was the director dismissed? Common sense seeks rational answers, in vain. Answers circulating in the media are frightening, yet more frightening is their validity.

According to these accounts, the dismissal is connected to the visit of U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance. While presenting the memorial complex, the director dared to speak about massacres and violence against Armenians committed by the Azerbaijani authorities, showed the khachkars commemorating them, and also presented Vance with a book describing these events. Gzoyan’s action was allegedly not forgiven by Armenia’s leadership and the Minister of Education. Gzoyan has long had a scholarly interest in the Artsakh issue and has continuously published astute articles in leading international journals. Her article on the massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan was recently published in the International Criminal Law Review, the most influential legal analysis of the topic to date.

Many believe that for the Minister of Education, this could have been a convenient opportunity to get rid of Gzoyan, as before the elections, she was trying to shift responsibility for the “sloppily” renovated Tsitsernakaberd memorial complex away from the ministry and herself and onto the museum’s director.

This article is not simply the story of Gzoyan, a dignified patriotic Armenian scholar. Nor is it merely another example of failure by Armenia’s leadership and Minister Zhanna Andreasyan. This story is also about the abandonment of one’s rights and homeland, about the assassination of academic independence in Armenia, and about the vulnerable nature of scientific and cultural institutions. It proves that whether one is a director or an ordinary researcher, one is vulnerable. There is no effective protection from the whimsy of superiors.

I write this as a professional whose biography was significantly shaped by the museum, where I worked from 2008 to 2018. In 2017–2018, serving as director, the museum’s legal status changed from a state non-commercial organization to a foundation. At the time, there was hope this change would increase academic freedom. But those were illusions, and the shackle on freedom only further tightened.

In 2018, I left to teach and write my doctoral dissertation at the University of North Carolina. When I returned in 2024, the newly elected director, Gzoyan, warmly welcomed me into the museum. At first, it was difficult to trust one another, but gradually we became a powerful team and overcoming challenges, achieved successes in a short time. That was no coincidence, as our visions, values, and commitment to principles were near identical. For a moment, I believed we were unstoppable…

About two months ago, I moved to UCLA. Learning about what happened here and looking with a kind of envy at the academic environment, I once again reflect not only on the AGMI but also on the broader crisis of social sciences in Armenia. I remember my conversations and discussions with Gzoyan. She had an unshakable belief that something could be changed in Armenia—that it was possible to create a Western-quality scientific environment—and with her optimism, she inspired the entire museum.

History shows that in Armenia, bright minds like Gzoyan are usually pushed out and marginalized, and in many cases, they emigrate. Our tragedy is not that we are in a swamp; our tragedy is that we feel comfortable in it.

If Armenia wants to have a scientific environment that meets international standards, the priority should not only be to encourage productivity but also to create institutional protection. Intellectuals with their own opinions must be protected from the encroachments of power. Without that, academic successes will remain temporary, while systemic problems will persist.

If we don’t change, we will bring about our own destruction.

Gevorg Vardanyan is a PhD from the University of North Carolina and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

—