Naturally, a great problem for the University of Minnesota stems from their having hired the paid propagandist with a background in terror, Taner Akcam. Taner Akcam was groomed by the forces of Armenian propaganda, for his priceless value in coming across as a "Turkish scholar" fully in agreement with practically all "Armenian genocide" claims (supporting the validity of the propagandistic Blue Book, for example, and even to the extent of supporting the Aram Andonian-forged "Talat Pasha telegrams." An Andonian telegram has also been featured at the CHGS site, as "genocide proof"). Once Akcam received his Ph.D. degree by practically copy-pasting the research of master propagandist Vahakn Dadrian, and making sure that Dadrian served as one of the two approvers of this doctorate, Dr. Dennis Papazian gave Akcam his first job as a "visting scholar" at the University of Michigan. But because Akcam has no home university to be "visiting" from (he apparently never previously served in any university's faculty), the university's rules on visitors had been shown to be violated, and Akcam needed a new home. Enter Stephen Feinstein, whose CHGS is exceptionally well-connected with the forces of Armenian propaganda, and his bosses at the University of Minnesota, who heartily approved. All worked together to give Akcam the image of legitimacy that was necessary for his one-note academic career, suddenly endowing him with the title of "professor," and allowing him to influence impressionable minds with the Armenian propaganda that he has been allowed to teach in a few classrooms. Armenian foundations have been most happy to subsidize this invaluable "Turkish" tool of Armenian propaganda.

A Turkish-American wrote the University of Minnesota's president, Robert H. Bruininks, asking how the university, in good conscience, can support such a scholarly fraud. President Bruininks was kind enough to respond.

Robert H. Bruininks was the chief recipient of the letters I had penned back in 2003, in my hope to appeal to the honorable administrators of the University of Minnesota. The buck, after all, stopped with Robert H. Bruininks. Robert H. Bruininks' administration serves as, say, Ronald Reagan's presidency, in charge of an illegal Iran-contra operation, just as the University of Minnesota allows a vicious propaganda arm as the CHGS, serving as the antithesis for education. That does not necessarily mean either Reagan or Bruininks were or are directly responsible for allowing a corrupt arm to function, or to know the corruption of an arm they have allowed to function. (In Reagan's case, he claimed he did not remember. Yet, the case of Robert H. Bruininks was a complete unknown, for the outsiders among us.)

In his letter, President Bruininks termed Akcam "a respected scholar" and defended the paid propagandist by claiming that Akcam's academic accomplishments were "many" and that "there is strong international recognition of his work."

President Robert H. Bruininks

President Bruininks supported his contention by how "enthusiastically" Akcam's latest book had been reviewed in "important media outlets." But let's bear in mind that the genocide forces have become powerful, a good result of those within the industry presenting themselves as noble (because they happen to be against genocide, which is a no-brainer, as who among us would be for genocide?), and thus lazy-thinkers who accept others' surface views quickly jump on this bandwagon. (Because it's such an effortless way for us to demonstrate how "good" and "moral" we can be.) In addition, Turks have the stigma of being "Terrible," and too many people are prejudiced, and whatever negatives said about Turks are automatically accepted — particularly when the negatives come from a fellow Turk, the idea of which is simply irresistible. Hardly anybody stops and seriously analyzes Akcam's Dadrian propaganda.

And just as missionary propaganda fed off each other as to present the appearance of a great consensus back in the old days, these days the genocide network has become so tremendous, we have like-minded individuals feeding off one another. Thus, one of the book reviews Bruininks provided as an example, appearing in the The New York Review of Books, happened to be written by the genocidist Michael Oren, who irresponsibly accepted Akcam's mainly-Dadrian claims as though they were the gospel truth. Of course Taner Akcam is going to be "respected" if all these other lazy-thinkers or bigots are going to be completely uncritical. (Rare are the book reviews written by genuine historians, whose business is to be meticulous and nothing but objective, as when one took a crack at Dadrian's "scholarship.")

The points raised are nothing new, and form common sense. What is new is our learning of how closely President Bruininks has aligned himself with these propagandistic forces, endangering his own personal academic credibility. The fact that he has vouched for Akcam's "many" academic accomplishments tells us something about President Bruininks, because all of Akcam's works (he has produced only two books to date, the second forming the English translated version of "A Shameful Act"; that's many? [The president may have been alluding as well to Akcam's countless genocide articles, prepared with the help of his genocide network, and these surely would constitute "many," inasmuch as it is debatable whether such work would fall under the category of academic accomplishments.] And both books are on the one-note genocide topic; a third Akcam book is slated to appear in 2008) have appeared in genocide-supportive publications, or published by Akcam's benefactors, as his mentor Dadrian's Zoryan Institute.

President Bruininks then explained how "deeply committed" the University of Minnesota is in "protecting academic freedom," perhaps justifying what a rogue like Taner Akcam is doing at his university.

But was the president being sincere? Everything offered at his university appears to be 100% propagandistic, as regards the "Armenian genocide." Is there a real historian at the university's history department, giving us the genuine history of these WWI events? If the university has made no attempt to balance the scales whatsoever, then what does that say about "academic freedom"? Quite the contrary, decisions have been made to support only one view regarding this topic, and a deliberately distorted and hateful view at that.

President Bruininks further went on to justify Akcam's presence by stressing how important it is for faculty members "to research and publish important work that brings ideas into the scholarly and public realms for discussion and debate." The problem is, of course, that there is no debate. Everything is evidently 100% propaganda, as far as the "Armenian genocide," at the University of Minnesota, appearing to be beholden to the probable stipulations, or at least wishes, of a primary monetary benefactor, the "Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts." This goes totally against the truism that a university should be open to a variety of ideas, if the university goes out of its way to support only one view. A view that, not incidentally, propagates hatred and racism.

In addition, Akcam is not approaching his topic honestly and objectively. Whatever research Akcam is performing is to affirm his agenda, while omitting inconvenient facts, or by trying to discredit them. So, yes, a university should support faculty members "to research and publish important work," that needen't be said. But when a university supports the research of one who is a blatant propagandist, then the university helps destroy its own credility. What also need not be said is that the foremost allegiance of a university is to truth, and nothing but the truth.

President Bruininks concluded his August 3, 2007 letter by offering another noble truism, that society is best served through knowledge advancement, and "knowledge is best advanced when academic inquiry is free from restraints by the state, by the church or other institutions, or by special-interest groups." Who can argue with that? But the hypocrisy in this case is thunderous. The University of Minnesota, when it comes to the "Armenian genocide," appears to be totally beholden to "special-interest groups." And in the service of these special-interest groups, the university actually supports, in the form of employment as well as the implied legitimacy of employment at a seeminly honorable university, to characters of dubious background, and/or questionable academic competence, acting as agents of the special-interest groups.

The last letter from University of Minnesota officialdom, dated September 19, in response to the query of the second Turkish-American, was written by James A. Parente, Jr., the Interim Dean and a Professor of German, Scandinavian and Dutch.

Now, what is a "German, Scandinavian and Dutch" department doing in support of "genocide"?

A search resulted in a possible connection; Dr. Parente is additionally part of the university's Center for German and European Studies (CEGS, a separate and perhaps related department, at least as far as the "German" angle), which Taner Akcam is also affiliated with. Perhaps these two got close because of Akcam's German background. This department (CEGS, and not the CHGS) "produced a public television show on the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire on the occasion of the 90th anniversary." How very peculiar that they would go so far as to actually produce a television show. (Or... is it?)

The page shedding light on the CHGS (which provided the above TV show revelation) also tells us that the 1997-founded CHGS "works on campus with the Centers for German and European Studies; the Center for Bioethics; the Department of German, Scandinavian,and Dutch; History; Sociology; Art History; the Law School; and others, including CAS." The reach of the CHGS obviously goes far and wide.

Returning to Dr. Parente's letter, we again get the shpiel on what an "accomplished scholar" Taner Akcam is. It is unfortunate that Dr. Parente appears to have suffered from temporary amnesia, regarding the meaning of the word "scholar" (it can't be repeated often enough: one who considers all relevant information in order to arrive at a dispassionate conclusion. Akcam has begun his genocide thesis with the conclusion first, which, of course, makes him a "propagandist"); we are also told that Akcam is a specialist "in late Ottoman and modern Turkish history," without the explanation that in academic circles one needs a degree in history in order to be recognized as a historian, as well as "the sociology of the Middle East." Is anyone familiar with Akcam's work touching on any Middle Eastern nation, particularly in a sociological vein? (In a 2005 radio interview, Akcam led listeners to believe his work was on genocide, and only "the Genocide.") How disingenuous of Dr. Parente to make Akcam more than the one-note genocidist that he is.

Dr. Parente classifies Akcam's research as "path-breaking" (what is so remarkable about mostly copying and pasting the propaganda work of his mentor, Vahakn Dadrian?), and informs that "The College of Liberal Arts is honored to consider Professor Akcam a valued member of our faculty." (Absolutely! The chair of the College of Liberal Arts, Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian, would certainly want to get their money's worth.)

And then:

"The College of Liberal Arts upholds the principles of academic freedom and responsibility affirmed by the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents." You see, they are "Rooted in the belief that the mind is ennobled by the pursuit of understanding and the search for truth." (Emphasis Holdwater's.)

"The College of Liberal Arts and University of Minnesota welcome differing viewpoints and perspectives, and encourage an open and free exchange of ideas."

No, they do not. By repeating such honorable-sounding but thoroughly empty words (not backed up by any visible deeds, at least not in regards to the Armenian "genocide"), perhaps these University of Minnesota personnel have come to believe in their dishonesty and hypocrisy. To back up his words, Dr. Parente actually offers: "Indeed, the Department of History is home to the University's Center for Holocaust and Gencocide Studies."

In other words, the CHGS, which serves as the root of the University of Minnesota's propagandistic poison, is actually provided as a primary example of how the Ohannisian-funded "College of Liberal Arts and University of Minnesota" offers an "open and free exchange of ideas"!

Hopefully, people reading this page were located in "no fly zones," as we have lost track of the number of times our mouths have dropped.

We must, however, resist the urge to generalize, as it is quite possible that Prof. Weitz serves as the very rare exception to the rule of genocide scholars' aversion to scientific principles. So let's take a look at what Weitz has to say about the "Armenian genocide."

The chairman of the University of Minnesota Department of History has co-authored (or more accurately, intends to co-author) a piece called "Young Turk Decision Making 1914-16," along with... Taner Akcam. Most Holocaust-centric genocide scholars, as Weitz appears to be, are frequently content to give a surface appraisal of the "Armenian genocide," basing their knowledge on the omnipresent propaganda in existence, without conducting any original research that does not involve the annals of Armenian propaganda. It's not difficult to imagine that Weitz has bowed to his Turkish colleague, regarded as a "specialist" on the matter. Since Weitz refers to himself as a "historian of modern Germany," it's possible he will handle the "German" end, as the idea here is to reconstruct "the process of decision making in Istanbul and Berlin in regard to a) the Armenian deportations and massacres during the critical months from late 1914 through 1916, and b) the policies toward other ethnicities in this same period."

The Germans were not that involved, and already Lepsius has performed the work of looking into German reports regarding, at least, the Armenians. What really needs to be done is to look into the archival documents that have been purposely avoided from Lepsius on down (and, similarly, in the case of the Ottoman archives, which will likely be Akcam's domain). Will these two gentlemen act as real historians and consider all of the information that is relevant, or will they cherry-pick the items serving their agenda? (This is, of course, a rhetorical question.)

The proposal gets to the heart of the matter: "Intentionality is the key component of the definition of genocide contained in the United Nations Convention on the Crime and Prevention of Genocide. Scholarly and political conflicts about the events of 1914-15 largely revolve around this issue. Our detailed reconstruction will enable us to address the issue of intentionality more precisely than has yet been possible."

But here's the rub: these two are starting out with the idea that there was a genocide, and will use whatever they can to try and support that thesis. (Or as they precisely termed it, their "working hypothesis.") If they should encounter factual evidence running to the contrary, of which plenty is already in evidence and no big research is required, what are they going to do? The answer focuses specifically on what is expected of real historians.

But let's concentrate on Weitz, as we already know what a shameful propagandist Taner Akcam is.

The above analysis on Eric Weitz relied on secondhand information, and before we close, let's take a look at Weitz's direct "Armenian" thoughts, from a portion of his own 2003 book made available on the Internet, A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation.

"Genocides have occurred since the earliest recorded history, from the Israelite destruction of numerous communities in Canaan, depicted in the Book of Joshua, to the Roman annihilation of Carthage and its population. But beginning with the Armenians, genocides have become more extensive, more systematic, and more thorough."

Yes, folks, that passage evidently serves as the book's beginning, and already Dr. Weitz has put the Armenian experience as a kind of end-all of genocides. The dishonesty of genocidists is truly hard to stomach. Not only is an episode that was not a genocide pointed to as an example of genocide (and not just any example, but a mold for future genocides to follow), thanks to the power and influence and wealth of those who reap benefits from victimhood status and/or possess psychological problems (as the financiers of the chair Weitz served on since 2001), but all the many, many examples of historical "Man's Inhumanity to Man" are conveniently shoved under the rug — either because the victims have no clout, or because there is too much prejudice against the victims, and the unscrupulous genocide industry has designated that such victims must be presented as villains. It is truly awful what these people are committing, and all under the guise of being so noble, and being so for "human rights."

As an example, even the Wellington House propagandist and hopelessly pro-Armenian Arnold Toynbee has written:

...[T]he nomad’s death-cry is seldom heard. During the European War, while people in England were raking up the Ottoman Turks’ nomadic ancestry in order to account for their murder of 600,000 Armenians, 500,000 Turkish-speaking Central Asian nomads of the Kirghiz Kazak Confederacy were being exterminated—also under superior orders—by that ‘justest of mankind’ the Russian muzhik.

Now why should this episode be so totally unknown, especially in these "genocide-sensitive" times? Particularly if most of these Kirghiz killings stemmed from real extermination efforts the Russians were so accustomed to by WWI, unlike the main cause of death for Armenians, the majority of whom died from non-murderous reasons, the same as most of the 2.7 million other Ottomans who died, the ones Eric Weitz does not care about either? (And as mentioned above, he certainly does not care — since he likely has not made acknowledgement, let alone any study — about the some 500,000 Ottoman Muslims and Jews the Armenians slaughtered with Russian help; it is the duty of the genocide scholar to champion the cause of the politically powerful Armenians.)

In this book I try to provide a historical account for the escalation of genocides in the twentieth century by examining in detail four cases: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, especially the ethnic and national purges initiated by Stalin, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and the former Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately for Eric Weitz, the example of modern genocide that was frequently added to the genocide list on everyone's lips (the "former Yugoslavia"), simply because the consent was manufactured by those with the power to get their message through, has been subsequently declared not a genocide, by no less an authority than the U.N. itself (through its court in the Hague; save for the example of Srebenica). What does that tell us about our "genocide scholar" who has erroneously classified a non-genocide as a genocide? It tells us that few exaamples are as cut and dried as the Nazi-Jewish prototype, and Weitz presents yet another example of the agenda-affirming and shallow thinking "genocide scholar." (In his next paragraph he tells us that he hopes to bring "clarity" to the word, genocide.)

(Weitz does get credit, however, for paying attention to the frequently avoided Lenin/Stalin period. Perhaps one day he will go farther back in Russian history, and examine the Tsars' extermination policies of the 19th century, but let's not hold our breath; often, the victims were politically incorrect Turkic and Muslim Caucasian peoples.)

(Upon further reading of this book sample, he does make note of Soviet actions against Chechens and Crimean Turks as genocides, so I may have spoken prematurely. How extensively such areas have been covered remains another matter, and may only be ascertained by the reading of his book. In other words, poltically-concerned genocide scholars are usually interested in episodes with financial muscle behind them, and either ignore or provide mere lip service to the politically powerless ones whose "death-cry is seldom heard.")

Weitz later examines the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention where he notes: "The Convention specifically does not include groups defined by their political orientation or class background." In other words, for example, "Indonesia could not be accused of genocide for the roughly 500,000 people... killed in 1965 because they were purportedly communists. The charge of genocide would be operative only if it could be shown that they were killed because of their Chinese ethnicity (as was true of so many of the victims)."

BINGO. The Armenians (that is, the ones who were killed by renegade forces, as no evidence demonstrates the Ottoman government was behind such killings) were not killed for their ethnicity, as no "racial hatred" network existed in the Ottoman Empire. The relocation of the Armenians, which is the pro-Armenians' synonym for genocide, occurred solely because the Armenians rebelled. (As mentioned above.) On this "political orientation" exclusion, already the "Armenian genocide" cannot be classified as a genocide. So why is Eric Weitz doing so? (Is it because Taner Akcam told him the Armenian rebellion was a "lie"?)

Isn't it embarrassing when a genocide scholar can't even apply the basic rules?

Further:

...Intentionality is clearly a critical criterion. For genocide to occur, there needs to be demonstrable intent to destroy "in whole or in part" particular population groups.

DOUBLE BINGO. There is certainly no evidence for "intent" on the part of the Ottomans, despite the pathetic protests of Taner Akcam to the contrary. So why is Eric Weitz classifying the Armenian episode as a "genocide"? He later explains that "intention" is not always easy to define, and that the case needs to be built "from the evidence of actions on the ground and often circumstantial links in the chain of command..." All right, then, where is even this indirect evidence in the Armenian episode, when all such "evidence" derives from hearsay and forgeries? For example, when missionaries or German consuls or even the rare Ottoman official provided personal opinions based on secondhand information, is that the kind of evidence that any legitimate courtroom would stress? Remember, we are asking a man who actually appears to have given credence to the "Hitler quote."

To compound matters, Weitz actually admits (emphasis Holdwatwer's):

Through its focus on intentionality, the fate of defined population groups, and physical annihilation, the Genocide Convention, despite its weaknesses, provides us with a fruitful working definition that can guide the study of past regimes and events. It is the definition I abide by in this book, though with perhaps a more restrictive interpretation than others might employ.4

Wow! Then Weitz really has no excuse for being an Armenian genocide advocate, does he. (Much as he deserves credit for at least trying to abide by the Convention's definition, as otherwise, the "genocide" term would degenerate into meaninglessness.)

He also writes, after dismissing how some historians have tried to minimize the Holocaust (emphasis Holdwatwer's):

I also think that we should not allow our historical perspectives to be narrowed because comparisons have been done poorly or for notorious political purposes.

Isn't that incredible? His affirmation of the non-genocidal "Armenian genocide" has nothing to do with historical facts and everything to do with politics. For those of us who don't know Eric Weitz, as myself, it is plain to see from this book sample that he is an extremely intelligent man, and he appears to be an affable guy as well. On the surface, he sounds so fair, too. Since there are no real facts to support the validity of the Armenian story, why is Weitz so gung-ho about it? The reader's speculation is as good as mine, but the politics of the genocide industry must have a lot to do with it. (Unless he happens to dislike Turks, which we can't say, not knowing the man. Unfortunately, many Westerners suffer from at least some dosage of anti-Turkish prejudice, in any event.)

Interestingly, he breaks ranks with many Jewish genocide scholars in attesting that the Holocaust was not unique, unprecedented though it was: "Historians compare all the time, most often implicitly; indeed, the only way one could even sustain an argument of uniqueness is by comparison. If we insist on the incomparability of the Holocaust, we place it outside of history.8 Instead, I work in this book in an explicitly comparative manner." Well, he sure proved himself by going out of his way in the Zoryan-sponsored Toronto lecture, by practically making the Holocaust and the Armenian myth one and the same. It must not have occurred to him that by comparing a real genocide with a fake one, he worked to dishonor the Jewish victims of the Nazis.

Weitz continues:

In writing this study, I have violated one of the historian's cardinal rules: to work only on areas where he or she knows the language of the people and has access to the primary sources. I have ventured far from my core areas of knowledge but felt that the last two of my selections—Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia—were at least partly justified by my familiarity with the history of twentieth-century communism. Yet I did not feel free to roam just anywhere, and readers will note that I do not deal with another very large and virtually undisputed case of genocide, that of Rwanda. There I felt that my lack of knowledge of African histories and cultures was too great...

The man can certainly be a study in contrasts. There are many historians who have broken those particular rules, and have still produced valid works of history. (And if he considers knowledge of language and primary source access as necessities, he sure has violated these "cardinal rules" in a monumental fasion, in his attempt to write Ottoman history.) But since he is so sensitive to rules, in his presentation of the Armenian myth, he has broken the greatest historical rule of all. That would be the requirement to be honest and objective, and certainly refuse to consider sources that are blatantly proopagandistic.

For openly accepting the Armenian matter as a genocide, not only by disregarding easily accessible and irrefutable facts, but even by ignoring the requirements of the Genocide Convention that Weitz indicated he would be faithful to, Prof. Weitz has proven himself to be an anti-historian. An anti-historian leads the history department of the University of Minnesota, which does not speak well for the reputation of such a department of history. And when the entire university is beholden to forces of hateful propaganda, such does not speak well of the University of Minnesota. Not to say every department is necessarily soiled, but unfortunately, at this point of its history, the University of Minnesota is doing a wonderful job in convincing students in consideration of attending a good university that, if the students desire truth, they had better look elsewhere.

Robert H. Bruininks
President
University of Minnesota



December 13, 2007

Dear President Bruininks:

I am indebted to Erkin Baker for sharing with me her correspondence with you and responses on your behalf she received from Counsel Benrud and Dean Parente Jr. (latter with a copy to Chair Weitz.) I would like to present my views. Please allow me to organize my thoughts under the following headings:

1- “CHECKERED PAST” OF DR. TANER AKCAM

I am aware Dr. Akcam receives his share of praise, but this must be observed in the context of political correctness and prejudice. The area of genocide scholarship has become powerful, and not many are willing to question their claims, for fear of being intimidated and labeled as Holocaust deniers .

In addition, there exists an age-old prejudice against Turks, making the claims of Dr. Akcam all the more acceptable, by people unwilling to study the issues objectively. Dr. Akcam has certainly not proven that there was a genocide conducted against Armenians, nor has anyone else; many legitimate historians disagree with this conclusion, as the evidence for genocide rests upon hearsay and forgeries. Even a few scholars have faulted Vahakn Dadrian, the mentor of Dr. Akcam, with distortions questioning his scholarly ethics. More importantly, since Dr. Akcam's research seems to contain too many similar manipulations, is it a recycling of Dadrian's work?

While Dr. Akcam may have a rudimentary knowledge of Ottoman language, a rich and complex amalgam of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, steeped in Islamic religion and age old customs, Vahakn Dadrian does not seem to have even that much. In any case, neither gentleman’s ability to accurately handle the Ottoman language and interpret the intricacies contained in the Ottoman documents can be claimed to satisfy the academic standards meticulously observed by Turkish experts in Ottoman language and history. This lack of mastership of Ottoman language may help explain, but not excuse, Dr. Akcam’s misinterpretations of Ataturk’s words in his last book (see the reference below.) This may also explain why Vahakn Dadrian has not been seen pouring over the Ottoman archives in Turkey, while researchers from 80 countries have. Yet, these obvious deficiencies somehow do not seem to stop either gentleman from making outrageous and unsubstantiated accusations against the Ottoman Empire, as well as Ataturk and Turkey. One would surely expect higher standards of scholarship from “genocide scholars”.

If the Armenian genocide claim is a politicized one, equating Turks with Nazis leads to further prejudice and hatred against Turkish people. If the University of Minnesota supports highly selective source materials, akin to Ku Klux Klan literature attempting to present a portrayal of blacks and Jews, that is a matter all honorable people need to be concerned about.

Counsel Benrud has written that "…the University conducted a thorough review of Prof. Akcam's academic credentials, and his eligibility...", but I am wondering about the thoroughness of this review.

My understanding is that a visiting professor needs to have a home university to be visiting from, lasting on average a relatively short duration, no more than a few years, after which the professor is expected to return to his home university. It does not seem like he was ever part of a university's faculty, before arriving in the United States from Germany. Does Dr. Akcam have a home university to return to?

Furthermore, it looks as though Taner Akcam was groomed by Armenian activists; his Ph.D. was co-approved by Vahakn Dadrian (as well as one other person, a cooperative genocide scholar), who was not affiliated with any university at the time. This is troubling on several levels. For one, it brings to mind many questions — if Akcam's books serve as examples: Was the thrust of his Ph.D. unoriginal? Was it relying heavily on the work of Dadrian himself?

Dr. Akcam was brought into the United States through the University of Michigan's Armenian Research Center, and appears to have lost his job there, probably after this university was made aware of its "visiting professor" rules being violated. Dr. Akcam was called a "visiting scholar" when he first arrived, and it is very curious as to how his title was changed to "professor." In Germany, one doctorate is not sufficient to earn the professor's title. It seems fair, therefore, to ask the following questions:

Is Dr. Akcam's position being subsidized by an Armenian foundation directly or indirectly?

If this is the case, is there not a conflict of interest involved, endangering the credibility of the University of Minnesota?

Are the "visiting professor" rules of the University of Minnesota being violated now by Dr. Akcam’s status, credentials, record, and/or qualifications?

Does the American public have a right to know if the University of Minnesota’s rules are being violated?

Furthermore, Dr. Akcam admitted in a Turkish newspaper interview (Milliyet, January 11, 2002) that he had collaborated with the PKK in the early 1980s, designated as a terrorist organization by our own government in Washington D.C., by Europe, and by The Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel (www.ict.org.il ) The PKK is responsible for deaths over ten times the toll of 9/11. Taner Akcam was involved with other violent organizations in Turkey during the 1970s as well, including one with PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan. Abdullah Ocalan, who is in a maximum security island-prison in Turkey since his capture with U.S. help in 1999, responded to Dr. Akcam's interview in the January 19, 2002 edition of Ozgur Politika, an organ of the PKK, where the terrorist leader claimed that Taner Akcam had "…caused heavy casualties..."

"…The ability to explore and discuss such issues in a reasoned, scholarly manner…",as Counsel Benrud has written, is to be encouraged, but to provide an outlet for vicious propaganda by biased scholars with dubious research, spreading racism and hatred, is another matter entirely.

2- GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS

While some amongst us may be forgiven for taking the blatant and ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for someone like me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, of yet untold, unfairly dismissed, or prejudicially ignored massacres of Turks during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 (which preceded the World War I of 1914-18 and the Turkish Independence War of 1919-1922.) These seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 brought wide-spread death and destruction to Ottoman Muslims as well as others. Those nameless, faceless victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.

Allegations of Armenian genocide are racist and dishonest history. They are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; around half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists. By ignoring the suffering of one side completely, any war, including the American civil war, may be made to look like a genocide.

And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss “The Six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict”:

1) Tumult (as in Armenian armed uprisings)
2) Terrorism (by Armenian nationalists and militias)
3) Treason (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies)
4) Territorial demands (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority)
5) Turkish suffering and losses (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists)
6) Tereset (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

Armenians, thus, effectively put an end to their millennium of relatively peaceful and harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia with Muslims by killing their Muslim/Turkish neighbors and openly joining the invading enemy. Turks were only defending their home like any citizen anywhere would do.

3- DOUBLE STANDARDS

It may be said that hundreds of thousands of innocent Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians offered none of the harm to America in 1945 that the whole of the Armenian community treacherously performed against the Ottoman Empire, between the late 19th century and 1915. Yet, the Ottomans responded only by Tereset, temporarily resettling some of the Armenians, not all, to other parts of the Empire and only when the last straw broke the camel’s back (i.e. after the bloody Armenian revolt in Van.) Nevertheless, not too many people in America today consider accusing the U.S. of committing genocide with those atomic bombs, although the intent to exterminate the entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a matter of uncontested record.

Consider that all this carnage came over and above the wholesale Japanese-American relocation of 1942 which was based on a hunch, a probability of fifth column activities by some Americans merely because of their ethnic origin. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, except for those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." During the period of 1939–41, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention index ("CDI") on citizens, "enemy" aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous based principally on census records. Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Presidential Proclamations 2525 (Japanese), 2526 (German) and 2527 (Italian) were signed. Many homes were raided using information from the CDI, and hundreds of aliens were in custody by the end of the day, including Germans and Italians (although war was not declared on Germany or Italy until December 11).

Contrast the above absolutist American acts against the American citizens and Japanese citizens with the Ottomans’ flexibility and tolerance. The latter did not move the Ottoman-Armenian citizens out of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne, Aleppo and other places, even after blatant Armenian treason elsewhere, thus separating “probable threat” from “proven threat”.

Consider further that all absolutist American actions mentioned above came decades after the Tereset of 1915. If temporary resettlement was so wrong, then why did the U.S. resort to it and worse? How come no one is charging the U.S. with the crime of genocide? How can anyone honestly explain these double standards in academia?

4- PROMOTE MORE RESEARCH AND DIALOGUE: INVITE THE OPPOSING VIEWS

If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then please don’t silence people like me who disagree with you and/or others in your university on the characterization of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. Not giving responsible opposing ideas a place in genocide panels is a form of censorship and does violate my freedom of speech as an American. Include the other side of the story in your genocide panels. I would be more than happy to participate as a speaker, for example, in one of your future “genocide panels” to offer the benefits of the other side of the story to unsuspecting attendees. You can perhaps convince the organizers to allow the showing of the 45-minute documentary “Armenian Revolt 1894-1920” during such panels. Freedom of speech should be honored by such “solid deeds”, not simply by “hollow words” in clichés.

As a university president, I believe you have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given a fair chance to hear all sides of a controversy and that “partisan accounts” are not promoted as “settled history”. I coined a new term back in 2003, my humble gift to the English language, to describe the stance of the Armenian-funded genocide scholars vis-à-vis the Turkish-Armenian conflict: “ETHOCIDE”, a brief definition of which is “deliberate and systematic extermination of ethics via malicious mass deception for political and other benefits.”

President Bruininks, fairness, objectivity, and truth are all that I ask.

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
Son of Turkish-survivors from both maternal and paternal sides

Cc:
Brent P Benrud
James A Parente Jr.
Eric D Weitz