Dr. Mary Papazian was inaugurated on Thursday as San Jose State's 30th president. In her inaugural address, she made repeated reference to the Armenian Genocide [1] [2]. A colleague noted that the whole week of inaugural activities was about Armenia - including two movies about the genocide. Then she asked "Do you think she should not have made such references"?
It's a tough call and raises a number of issues. First, where to draw the line between the re-assertion of history and the making of political points. University leaders probably should not be overtly political since that may impede free speech; but they should stand up for truth over the re-interpretation of history. Another similar case would be countering holocaust deniers. Then there is the question of timing. Should it be driven only a rise in history revisionists, or at any major public event that will have some press coverage regardless of the external environment, or at any opportunity where the message might make a difference (such as the introduction of a speaker to a campus event or at graduation).
My sense is that it was appropriate. Turkey is becoming more authoritarian, the freedom of the press is being curtailed, the regime would much prefer the Armenian Genocide to disappear and will no doubt be trying to make sure that happens in all domestic media and as much of the international media as it can intimidate. So against that background, given my earlier argument about revisionism, I’d say she did the right thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment