A group of academics and polemicists in Yerevan are trying to enforce orthodoxy in Armenian history writing by branding as traitors and foreign agents historians with whose published findings they disagree. They advocate the proposition that scholars of Armenian descent have an obligation to reach conclusions that would make Armenians proud.

In December 2001 the Armenian history department at the Yerevan State University Faculty of History adopted this group’s position by voting in favor of a Soviet-style resolution that goes so far as to name names (see pp. 36–37 n. 97 of this issue for excerpts). The resolution stands as an unequivocal announcement that the work of scholars from Yerevan State cannot be credible, for they would suppress any evidence that did not lead to certain preordained conclusions.

At a meeting with Armenian Forum editor Vincent Lima in February 2002, the dean of the Faculty of History, Babken Harutiunian, disavowed the resolution, adding that it was adopted without his knowledge while he was abroad. It seems especially important to recognize that the people who pushed the resolution through do not speak for all their colleagues, and to continue to seek out and engage serious scholars trained and based in Yerevan—of which there are many. Indeed, we are pleased to include in this issue the work of two such scholars.

At the center of this movement to enforce orthodoxy is a 1998 book by Armen Ayvazian, billed as a scholarly critique of the United States "school" of Armenian studies. Sebouh Aslanian, an advanced graduate student at Columbia University, examines the book in great detail. Aslanian agrees with Ayvazian that the work product of the Armenian-studies establishment in the United States requires a thorough scholarly critique. He finds, however, that Ayvazian has failed to produce anything more than a crude polemic.

Also in this issue, anthropologist Harutyun Marutyan looks at the posters and placards that people displayed in the streets of Armenia during the Gharabagh movement in 1988–90. He hones in on an interesting pattern: a plurality of the icons referred not to Gharabagh but to genocide. Moreover, the messages of the icons changed over time. Marutyan argues that the changing messages indicate a transformation in the self-image of Armenians in Armenia from that of "grieving and pleading victims" to that of "warriors, to the idea of achieving one’s goals through struggle."

Social scientists Anny Bakalian and Aghop Der-Karabetian argue that Armenian organizations ought to commission formal outcome evaluations of their programs so that they might improve the programs and allocate resources to those that work. They report on an uncommissioned evaluation that they performed: a study of summer internship programs sponsored by two Armenian organizations in the United States, the Armenian Assembly of America and the Armenian General Benevolent Union.

According to Yerevan-based attorney Tom Samuelian, the Internet can help improve the rule of law in Armenia and thereby facilitate Armenia’s economic development. Samuelian offers a set of practical suggestions. These include developing an authoritative online guide to common transactions (such as clearing a package through customs and obtaining a building permit) in order to cut down on frustrations and runarounds; making judicial opinions available online to increase judicial accountability and consistency. At our request, the author discusses also who would fund and carry out the projects.

We present a provocative conversation with Hrant Markarian, the new leader of the Dashnak party. The discussion covers Armenia’s economy, Gharabagh, and the future of Western Armenia.

We wrap up with a film review and reviews of a number of books.