| www.harveysilverglate.com |
Facing History: A Reply
Dear Margot Stern
Strom and the Facing History staff:
We are two high school teachers in the
First, we must call your attention to a serious factual error on
your “Genocide and Denial” web page that needs correction. We refer to
your description of the legal case in which we are plaintiffs. It is
difficult to believe that Facing History, an organization dedicated to
“combating.... myth and misinformation with knowledge” didn’t bother to
fact check, or to give us a call – we’re both known to
FH and in the phonebook. Your misrepresentations lead us to believe either
that no one at FH has even bothered to read the complaint, or that you are
purposely misrepresenting the case to further your own objectives. We are not sure which of these is
worse.
Your summary of Griswold v. Driscoll is inaccurate because it
misstates the issue that is being litigated. As our complaint makes clear,
we are not suing to add any resource listings to the non-mandatory state
Genocide Curriculum Guide. We are suing because we believe that the
Massachusetts Department of Education acted unconstitutionally when, under
political pressure, it removed certain resource listings from the guide
that had been approved and previously included by professional educators.
This is an important legal distinction, which was established in the Pico
Decision of 1982. The principle we are seeking to vindicate would apply
equally to any controversial material that is excised in such a manner.
Our brief asserts a violation of the First Amendment and is completely
silent on the historical issues. Significantly, the state’s response is
equally silent, and advances a different theory of free speech. The
plaintiffs may well have different motives in bringing this constitutional
issue to court, and they surely have different positions on the historical
issues that lie outside the ambit of the case. For example, we are
honestly uncertain at this point whether a genocide, within the legal
meaning of that term, did or did not occur. But we are convinced that the
Armenian people underwent terrible suffering and were victims of intense
ethnic hatred and criminal behavior. Our hearts go out to all the
victims.
Apart from the First Amendment violation that we assert, we are
also concerned generally about growing government control over history
curricula in an age of extensive state testing.
Equally troublesome to us is Facing History’s quasi-religious
attitude to those who dare to deviate from the group’s dogma. You arrogate
to yourselves the right to proclaim “The Truth ” on unsettled historical
issues. Then you use the bludgeon of name-calling and public-shaming to
induce conformity with your views. Those with the temerity to be uncertain
or to disagree with the FH line become “denialists” and even, through
insinuation, Turkish agents. This practice has more in common with the way
some religious institutions deal with blasphemers than with how historians
respond to conflicting ideas.
Your web page’s ‘Questions for Educators” also provide queries that
seem more like answers. The questions are leading and loaded, and seem
designed to funnel readers to FH-approved conclusions. Take the question:
“ • Why do you think
genocide denial does not go away despite refutations by reputable
scholars?” This question about denial itself denies to the reader the fact
that reputable historians like Bernard Lewis and Justin McCarthy happen to
disagree with your position on the Armenian Genocide. Do your questions
encourage thinking or shut it down?
(For a longer list of
Nor do you mention to your readers that there are genocide
historians who disagree with the parallels you draw between the Jewish and
Armenian experiences, and who further believe you have taken liberties
with history in your well-intentioned curricular materials. (Conflating us
with the President of Iran is surely spurious). But disagreement is
normal. After all, historians research, write, and debate. They do not
seek to suppress or censor, whether in the Pamuk case, or in the
Massachusetts DOE, or at
FH’s inclination to demonize those with different positions recalls
for us past periods in our history when those who thought differently were
cast out as “disloyal” or as “insufficiently anti-imperialist.” That is
not how we were taught to study or teach history. And that is not the kind
of society that we want to live in – whether it be
On a personal note, Margot, it is a serious matter to depict us as
“denialists” or as practitioners of “hate speech” or to suggest, as your
positioning of the Charney quote does, that we, Larry Aaronson and Bill
Schechter, are people who “practice aggression” or “continue the process
of genocide.” No one who knows us–not loved ones,
students, their parents, colleagues, friends, or neighbors
–would ever recognize
us in the poisonous description that FH constructed and then conveyed in a
matter-of-fact, academic tone. You smear and dehumanize us, and reduce us
to a pathology. Surely this trivializes the very serious phenomenon of
genocide denial that you rightly oppose. Let’s hope that no unbalanced
“bystander” out there will be inspired by FH’s rhetoric to cleanse the
world of two newly-discovered “denialists.” (Apparently, one staff
“bystander” at the U.S. Holocaust Museum has already been inappropriately
moved to confront and embarrass some Lincoln-Sudbury students and teachers
on a recent visit there).
We believe that there are those on the FH staff who know who we
actually are: dedicated teachers who for over thirty years have helped
lead the fight in our school communities for social justice, for human
rights, and for free speech. Our commitment to the rights and dignity of
all people began well before there was a Facing
History.
Facing History has a long proud history and serves an important
need. But it should remain a history group that respects differing
points-of-view and the need for intellectual debate. FH shouldn’t morph
into a quasi-religious enterprise that, for reasons of institutional
interest or “genocide community” politics, becomes preoccupied with
defending a creed from infidels.
Finally, it would be helpful if you reaffirmed on your website your
commitment to freedom of speech, a critical value in the democratic vision
you present to students and teachers. After all, that’s what the Griswold
Case–which you
misrepresent–is really all
about.
Sincerely,
Larry Aaronson
432
Bill
Schechter Enclosure:
AMERICAN SCHOLARS RESPOND TO A PROPOSED HOUSE
RESOLUTION (May 19, 1985) TO
THE MEMBERS OF THE
The
undersigned American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and
Middle Eastern Studies are concerned that the current language embodied in
House Joint Resolution 192 is misleading and/or inaccurate in several
respects. Specifically, while fully supporting the concept of a "National
Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man," we respectfully take
exception to that portion of the text, which singles out for special
recognition:
". . . the one and
one half million people of Armenian ancestry who were victims of genocide
perpetrated in
Our reservations
focus on the use of the words "
From the fourteenth century until 1922, the area
currently known as
Statesmen and
politicians make history, and scholars write it. For this process to work
scholars must be given access to the written records of the statesmen and
politicians of the past. To date, the relevant archives in the
We believe that the
proper position for the United States Congress to take on this and related
issues is to encourage full and open access to all historical archives and
not to make charges on historical events before they are fully understood.
Such charges as those contained H.J. Res. 192 would inevitably reflect
unjustly upon the people of
As the above comments
illustrate, the history of the Ottoman-Armenians is much debated among
scholars, many of whom do not agree with the historical assumptions
embodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By passing the resolution
Congress will be attempting to determine by legislation which side of the
historical question is correct. Such a resolution, based on historically
questionable assumptions, can only damage the cause of honest historical
inquiry, and damage the credibility of the American legislative
process.
SIGNATORIES TO THE
STATEMENT ON H.J.
RIFAAT
ABOU-EL-HAJ Professor of History
SARAH MOMENT
Professor of
KARL BARBIR Associate Professor of History
ILHAN
BASGOZ Director of the Turkish
Studies Program at the Department of
DANIEL G. BATES Professor of Anthropology
ULKU
BATES Professor of Art History
GUSTAV BAYERLE Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies
ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages
KATHLEEN BURRILL Associate Professor of Turkish Studies
RODERIC DAVISON Professor of History
WALTER DENNY Associate Professor of Art History & Near
Eastern Studies
DR. Anthropologist, Researcher
ELLEN
ERVIN Research Assistant Professor of Turkish
CAESAR FARAH Professor of Islamic &
Middle Eastern History
CARTER FINDLEY Associate Professor of History The
MICHAEL FINEFROCK, Professor of History
ALAN FISHER Professor of History
CORNELL FLEISCHER Assistant Professor of History
TIMOTHY CHILDS Professorial Lecturer at
SHAFIGA DAULET Associate Professor of
Political Science
JUSTIN MCCARTHY Associate Professor of History
JON
MANDAVILLE Professor of the History of
the
RHOADS MURPHEY Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History
PIERRE OBERLING Professor of History
ROBERT OLSON Associate Professor of History
DONALD QUATAERT Associate Professor of History
WILLIAM GRISWOLD Professor of History
WILLIAM HICKMAN Associate Professor of Turkish
JOHN
HYMES Professor of History
RALPH
JAECKEL Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish
JAMES
KELLY Associate Professor of Turkish
PETER
GOLDEN Professor of History
TOM GOODRICH Professor of History
ANDREW COULD Ph.D.
in Ottoman History
MICHAEL MEEKER Professor of Anthropology
THOMAS NAFF Professor of
WILLIAM OCHSENWALD Associate Professor of History Virginia Polytechnic Institute
WILLIAM PEACHY Assistant Professor of the
Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures The
HOWARD REED Professor of History
TIBOR
HALASI-KUN Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies
J. C.
HUREWITZ Professor of Government Emeritus Former Director of the
Institute (1971-1984)
HALIL
INALCIK University Professor of
Ottoman History & Member of the
RONALD Associate Professor of
KERIM Adjunct Professor Southeastern University
DANKWART RUSTOW Distinguished University Professor of Political Science
STANFORD SHAW Professor of History
METIN
KUNT Professor of Ottoman History
AVIGDOR LEVY Professor of History
DR.
HEATH W. LOWRY Institute of Turkish Studies Inc.
JOHN
MASSON SMITH, JR. Professor of History
ROBERT STAAB Assistant Director of the
JAMES
STEWART-ROBINSON Professor of Turkish Studies
FRANK
TACHAU Professor of Political Science
DAVID
THOMAS Associate Professor of History
WARREN S. WALKER Home Professor of English
& Director of the Archive of
WALTER WEIKER Professor of Political Science
MADELINE ZILFI |