‘Vance Syndrome’ and the Uncertain Future of Armenia’s Genocide Museum-Instit

Vice-President JD Vance and Second Lady Usha Vance at the Dzidzernagapert Armenian Genocide Monument on Feb. 10

BY HAYK MARTIROSYAN

The rumors about the forced “resignation” of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, have been confirmed. It’s now possible to discuss it openly. Claiming there is a significant amount of injustice and humiliation involved would be an understatement. Under such circumstances, even mentioning scientific impartiality and academic freedom seems pointless.

I worked at AGMI intermittently from 2006 to 2014. And during the last eight years, have been a researcher at the Lepsius House in Potsdam (providing archival materials and literature, organizing joint initiatives, etc.), while continuing to cooperate with the Museum-Institute regularly. I am currently also a member of the editorial board of the AGMI journal.

Dr. Gzoyan was elected director of AGMI two years ago. It is clear these past two years have been the most productive in AGMI’s history across numerous fields: there has been an unprecedented number of scholarly articles published in international and prestigious journals; after persistent efforts, the International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies was included last year in the highly sought-after Scopus list of academic journals (the only one from Armenia); international conferences and events were organized with global partners; an audio-guide system was introduced and made available in multiple languages; the contributions of all staff members—not just a select few—were recognized and encouraged; connections with Diasporan Armenian scholars were strengthened, and their contributions to AGMI’s efforts increased. It is impossible to list all the accomplishments. Why remove Gzoyan? Where did she fail?

Consider the scholar’s perspective: review the works and articles published by Gzoyan from the prior two years, note those in impactful international journals. How many people in our field can you name in Armenia who have more publications? Consider the active collaboration with Diasporan scholars. Take as clear proof of disagreement with this decision the fact that two Diasporan scholars on the Board of Trustees—Raymond Kevorkian and Stephan Astourian—have both left the board (as well as Vasken Yacoubian, President of the AGBU Armenia office), along with two other scholars from Armenia (Hranush Kharatyan and Harutyun Marutyan).

Look at the management aspect: the best evidence is the joint letter-appeal from all 74 AGMI employees (although it was clear that it would not be accepted) asking to prevent the change of director. As someone who spent many years at AGMI and knows its inner workings well, I assure you that such unity and positive atmosphere have never existed there before—I, of all people, know that.

Apparently, the claims are correct that her dismissal relates to J.D. Vance’s visit and the director’s conversation about Artsakh, which is unacceptable by the authorities. Moreover, judging from the videos, she even had the “audacity” to accompany Vance to the khachkars commemorating the massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan and tell him about them, presenting him with an informative book. (Here I would gladly recount an attempt to “convince” an influential professor in Leipzig on precisely this topic in a much more complicated situation, and the respected professor’s “beautiful” and “accessible” reply—but I cannot make it public.)

Personally, I believe Vance’s visit was simply the final straw. Because, to her credit, Gzoyan has always spoken out about the ethnic cleansing in Artsakh. A large amount of work has been done for that cause. She has also raised other topics unacceptable for the “constructive” authorities within the context of the Armenian Genocide (for example, topics about Nemesis, Tehlirian Trial, etc.). The reason for Gzoyan dismissal is certainly not the construction project happening at the memorial complex, as is being presented. The construction is primarily under the ministry’s control. If that were the reason, the director would have been dismissed last year when the controversy surrounding the construction reached its peak. If construction had truly been the issue, they could have appointed an “extraordinary and plenipotentiary foreman” until the work was completed. Or a rhetorical question arises: after the construction is finished, will the future director with construction expertise leave the position?

Gzoyan can leave with her head held high. Unfortunately, the enormous sense of hurt, disappointment, and injustice will hardly diminish because of that.

Alas—long live “academic freedom,” long live “effective” governance, long live the “appreciation” of Diasporan Armenian scholars, long live the “recognition” of the efforts to internationalize AGMI’s work and Armenian scholarship, long live your talent for “taking into account” the opinion of AGMI employees, and finally, long live “justice.”

Now appoint a “professional” whose only qualification will be “flexibility” and adaptability. Otherwise, the “Vance syndrome” tends to recur.

Dr. Hayk Martirosyan served, with some interruptions, as a research fellow at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute from 2006 to 2014. Since 2017, he has been a research associate at the Lepsiushaus in Potsdam. Martirosyan studied Oriental and Turkic studies at Yerevan State University and earned his doctorate from the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. His research focuses on the history of missionary activity in the Ottoman Empire, missionary biographies, and the history of aid organizations and rescue efforts for Armenians. He is the author of two monographs and more than two dozen scholarly articles.

—