Bill on Armenian genocide falls outside of Senate’s purview
By Editorial Board
Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Stanford Daily
April 19 2005

Last week, the ASSU Undergraduate Senate passed a bill to commemorate
the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915. Calling this
event “the first genocide of the 20th century,” the bill draws a
connection between the Armenian genocide and “the ongoing
humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of the Sudan.” Genocide is
an important and timely issue that the Stanford community should be
aware of, but that doesn’t mean the Senate was right to pass a bill
on it.

A Senate meeting is not the proper setting for discussing such a
sensitive, non-campus-related issue. The issue of the Armenian
genocide remains hotly contested, especially among the Turkish and
Armenian communities at Stanford. Some still hesitate to label the
incidents of 1915 as “genocide,” choosing to use words like
“massacre” or “atrocities” to describe the events instead. The
Daily’s editorial board is certainly not in a position to evaluate
these claims – but neither, we believe, is the Senate.

We doubt that the individual senators appreciate the political
nuances of this issue sufficiently to make an informed decision on
the bill. Political naivete is reflected in the bill’s language,
which comes across as unnecessarily emotive. For example, it
stridently denounces “the denialist campaign of the Turkish regime,
which strives to falsify history and erase any trace of the Armenian
Genocide . . .” Such strong language seems ill-suited to generating
thoughtful debate on the issue among the student body.

Moreover, the Senate’s decision to pass this bill sets up a strange
precedent for future Senate meetings. After deciding to commemorate
an event that took place 90 years ago, is the Senate going to
commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the Tiananmen Square incident? While the Armenian Genocide
deserves attention, singling it out as the subject of a bill seems
arbitrary.

We are also skeptical about how much of an impact such bills are
likely to make on the average Stanford student’s consciousness. In
general, there are better ways of raising awareness of pressing
international issues such as genocide.

Last week, the ASSU Undergraduate Senate passed a bill to commemorate
the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915. Calling this
event “the first genocide of the 20th century,” the bill draws a
connection between the Armenian genocide and “the ongoing
humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of the Sudan.” Genocide is
an important and timely issue that the Stanford community should be
aware of, but that doesn’t mean the Senate was right to pass a bill
on it.

A Senate meeting is not the proper setting for discussing such a
sensitive, non-campus-related issue. The issue of the Armenian
genocide remains hotly contested, especially among the Turkish and
Armenian communities at Stanford. Some still hesitate to label the
incidents of 1915 as “genocide,” choosing to use words like
“massacre” or “atrocities” to describe the events instead. The
Daily’s editorial board is certainly not in a position to evaluate
these claims – but neither, we believe, is the Senate.

We doubt that the individual senators appreciate the political
nuances of this issue sufficiently to make an informed decision on
the bill. Political naivete is reflected in the bill’s language,
which comes across as unnecessarily emotive. For example, it
stridently denounces “the denialist campaign of the Turkish regime,
which strives to falsify history and erase any trace of the Armenian
Genocide . . .” Such strong language seems ill-suited to generating
thoughtful debate on the issue among the student body.

Moreover, the Senate’s decision to pass this bill sets up a strange
precedent for future Senate meetings. After deciding to commemorate
an event that took place 90 years ago, is the Senate going to
commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the Tiananmen Square incident? While the Armenian Genocide
deserves attention, singling it out as the subject of a bill seems
arbitrary.

We are also skeptical about how much of an impact such bills are
likely to make on the average Stanford student’s consciousness. In
general, there are better ways of raising awareness of pressing
international issues such as genocide.

In this case, for instance, the Senate could work with the Armenian
Students Association to organize activities to commemorate the event
and educate Stanford students at the same time. Such a course of
action would be much more visible and productive, and would be more
likely to start the kind of dialogue that an event of such gravity
deserves. We doubt that the individual senators appreciate the
political nuances of this issue sufficiently to make an informed
decision on the bill. Political naivete is reflected in the bill’s
language, which comes across as unnecessarily emotive. For example,
it stridently denounces “the denialist campaign of the Turkish
regime, which strives to falsify history and erase any trace of the
Armenian Genocide. . .” The Senate seems ill-suited as a forum for
discussing such sensitive political issues, particularly when such
strong and potentially one-sided language is involved.

Moreover, the Senate’s decision to pass this bill sets up a strange
precedent for future Senate meetings. After deciding to commemorate
an event that took place ninety years ago, is the Senate going to
commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the Tiananmen Square incident?

We are also skeptical about how much of an impact future bills with
similar intent are likely to make on the average Stanford student’s
consciousness. Surely there are better ways of raising awareness of
pressing international issues such as genocide. In this case, for
instance, the Senate could work with the Armenian Students
Association to organize activities to commemorate the event and
educate Stanford students at the same time. Such a course of action
would be much more visible and productive, and would be more likely
to start the kind of dialogue that an event of such gravity deserves.