Academic Freedom in Armenia at Risk? The Case of Edita Gzoyan

20.03.2026

By Tigran Grigoryan

On March 11, Edita Gzoyan, Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI), submitted her resignation and was dismissed from her position. Media reports about the possible reasons for her resignation appeared immediately and were confirmed two days later by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan himself. During a briefing on March 13, Pashinyan confirmed that Gzoyan had written her resignation at his instruction.

The reason for this decision was that, during U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s visit to the AGMI in February of this year, Gzoyan presented him with a book related to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Following the visit, Gzoyan told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that, among other books, she had gifted the U.S. Vice President a volume on Armenian–Tatar clashes between 1905 and 1921.

Justifying his decision, Pashinyan described this act as contrary to the government’s foreign policy and as provocative. He stated that the government’s official position is that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is over and that Armenia will not continue it. By giving Vance a book related to the conflict, Gzoyan, in his view, had contradicted the government’s official stance. Notably, the book gifted by Gzoyan was actually a collection of historical accounts about Armenian–Tatar clashes between 1905 and 1921, rather than a work about the contemporary phase of the Karabakh conflict.

Gzoyan’s resignation under pressure from Prime Minister Pashinyan sparked strong reactions both in Armenia and in international academic circles. More than a dozen prominent genocide scholars issued a statement condemning the pressure on Gzoyan and calling for her reinstatement as director of the museum-institute. As a result of these developments, several members of the AGMI Board of Trustees also submitted their resignations in protest, including its chairman, French-Armenian genocide scholar Raymond Kévorkian. Armenia’s most well-known civic initiative promoting science and its popularization, “Gituzh,” also issued a statement, which noted in particular:

“The situation surrounding the forced resignation of Edita Gzoyan, Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum & Institute, raises serious concerns regarding the autonomy and institutional independence of scientific institutions. The head of a public research institution is not a political official and cannot be evaluated based on the criteria of current domestic or foreign political expediency. Labeling the professional actions of the head of a scientific institution as "contradictory to foreign policy" or "provocative" establishes a dangerous precedent. It suggests that the activities of scientific and, in this specific case, memory institutions can be subjected to political control.”

Gzoyan’s resignation under pressure from Prime Minister Pashinyan is problematic for several reasons. First, it represents yet another manifestation of Pashinyan’s personalist style of governance. Although the AGMI operates with state funding, it has a Board of Trustees, which is empowered to appoint and dismiss the director. In this regard, the Prime Minister’s actions are fully unlawful and violate the autonomy of the AGMI.

This is not the first time Pashinyan has exceeded his authority to secure the resignation of the heads of independent bodies. One of the most controversial such cases occurred in November 2024, when the Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Karen Andreasyan, resigned following a text message from Pashinyan.

Pashinyan’s actions and statements are also problematic from the perspective of academic freedom. His claim that Gzoyan’s actions contradict Armenia’s foreign policy does not withstand criticism. In practice, decisions of this kind contribute to the formation of an environment in Armenia where taboo topics may emerge for scholars working in various fields—topics that are not only discouraged but may also lead to serious consequences if studied or even mentioned. This can undoubtedly be seen as a manifestation of censorship, potentially restricting the space for free debate in Armenia.

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.

This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.