(A group of scholars focusing on genocide issued a letter decrying the removal of Dr. Edita Gzoyan as the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum‑Institute (AGMI) in Yerevan last week. The statement follows.)
We, the undersigned, express deep concern over the recent and troubling developments at the Armenian Genocide Museum‑Institute (AGMI) in Yerevan. On March 11, 2026, Dr. Edita Gzoyan, one of the most outstanding and dedicated directors in the history of the Institute, submitted her resignation — reportedly under pressure from the government rather than by free choice.
Dr. Gzoyan has elevated the AGMI to international academic prominence. Under her leadership, the Institute expanded its archival collections, organized key symposia and conferences, and produced scholarly works that have significantly advanced genocide studies worldwide. She has been a tireless advocate for rigorous historical research on the Armenian Genocide and related atrocities against Armenians — work that has strengthened global understanding of past injustices and supported the cause of historical truth.
What makes her forced departure particularly alarming is its timing and context. Just weeks earlier, Dr. Gzoyan had personally guided U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during his visit to the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex. She highlighted not only the genocide of 1915 but also later massacres of Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku, underscoring the historical continuity of anti‑Armenian violence in the region. She also presented Vice President Vance with scholarly works on the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict — essential context for understanding Armenia’s history and contemporary challenges. On March 12, in response to a journalist’s question regarding the forced resignation of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated:
“I was the one who asked the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute to submit a resignation letter; it was done on my instruction. I considered giving a book about Artsakh to Vance to be a provocative act that goes against the Government’s policy.”
The sequence of events indicates a broader and deeply troubling pattern: the silencing of independent academic voices in favor of political convenience. There is every reason to believe that this is less about museum administration and more about repositioning the AGMI to align its work with geopolitical priorities — especially a desire to avoid honest discussion of atrocities related to Azerbaijan amid ongoing normalization efforts.

