A Threat to Freedom of Expression That is Too Close for Comfort

 

On 22 September 2020 Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, wrote to the British Film Institute, British Library, British Museum, Churches Conservation trust, Historic Royal Palaces, Horniman Museum, Imperial War Museum, Museum of the Home, National Archives, National Gallery, National Museums Liverpool, National Portrait Gallery, Natural History Museum, Royal Armouries, Royal Museums Greenwich, Royal Parks, Science Museum Group, Sir John Soane’s Museum, Tate Gallery, V&A Museum and Wallace Collection.

 

“RE: HM GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONTESTED HERITAGE

 

You will recall my earlier letter setting out Government policy regarding contested heritage and the removal of historical objects.  I am grateful to those of you who have been in touch with me and my officials since.  This clearly remains a live issue, so I wanted to take the opportunity to provide further support by way of restating the Government’s position and inviting you to engage with DCMS on what this means in the context of your organisation.

 

Government Position

 

History is ridden with moral complexity. Statues and other historical objects were created by generations with different perspectives and understandings of right and wrong. Some represent figures who have said or done things which we may find deeply offensive and would not defend today.  But though we may now disagree with those who created them or who they represent, they play an important role in teaching us about our past, with all its faults.

 

It is for this reason that the Government does not support the removal of statues or other similar objects.  Historic England, as the Government’s adviser on the historic environment, have said that removing difficult and contentious parts of it risks harming our understanding of our collective past. Rather than erasing these objects, we should seek to contextualise or reinterpret them in a way that enables the public to learn about them in their entirety, however challenging this may be. Our aim should be to use them to educate people about all aspects of Britain’s complex past, both good and bad.

 

As set out in your Management Agreements, I would expect Arm’s Length Bodies’ approach to issues of contested heritage to be consistent with the Government’s position.  Further, as publicly funded bodies, you should not be taking actions motivated by

activism or politics.  The significant support that you receive from the taxpayer is an acknowledgement of the important cultural role you play for the entire country.  It is imperative that you continue to act impartially, in line with your publicly funded status, and not in a way that brings this into question. This is especially important as we enter a challenging Comprehensive Spending Review, in which all government spending will rightly be scrutinised.

 

Next Steps

 

I recognise that this is a difficult subject, and one that can attract a great deal of intense feeling - from a variety of perspectives - among employees of your organisations, stakeholders and the public at large.  We want to help.  As such, I will shortly be inviting you to an online roundtable, which will provide an opportunity for an open discussion about the government position, the practical implications in your context, and how we can best collaborate going forward.

 

In the meantime, DCMS would like to develop a more complete understanding of the work you are undertaking, or considering, in this space.  To that end, your Sponsors will be in touch with a short questionnaire designed to help inform our overview of this policy issue.  This is in addition to the existing request that you continue to notify the department in advance of any actions or public statements in relation to contested heritage or histories.

 

Thank you once again for your engagement on this important matter; I look forward to hearing from you.”

 

The government has chosen to portray to campaigns to remove statues of figures who can be judged by contemporary standards to have been in some ways reprehensible: perhaps involvement in slavery, having racist views, carrying out acts of violence against subjects of the British Empire. Now, I would not advocate removal of a statue simply because the person whom it commemorates does not match certain standards of behaviour or views. However, with the exception of one statue of a slaver in Bristol which was removed by force, and a few demonstrations during which some statues were daubed with graffiti (graffiti on a statue of Winston Churchill caused the loudest outrage), there has been little concrete action.

 

However, statues of Winston Churchill or Admiral Nelson, are convenient symbols that enabled the government to claim to defend the true heritage of our nation against rampaging mobs of criminals. This fits very nicely into the Brexit narrative of defending our sovereignty against foreign interference, defending our borders against the threat of foreign refugees and asylum seekers, creating a “hostile environment” for illegal (and frequently perfectly legal) immigrants and so on. Boris Johnson may not be a mini Donald Trump, but he stops only an inch or two short of claiming to Make Britain Great Again.

 

But are we to accept that our government can tell public museums how they may and may not portray our history, as if we live not in a democracy, but in a country whose government determines what versions of history we are allowed to receive? As a former publisher, I recognize this for what it is: government censorship. I never had to consider whether a government minister would approve the thesis of any book I have published. Nor – good for them – will museum curators.

 

The Museums Association responded to Mr Dowden’s letter as follows:

“The Museums Association (MA) welcomes the UK Government’s support for museums in England to date, in particular the Job Retention Scheme and the Culture Recovery Fund.

We agree with the Secretary of State’s comments in his recent letter to national museums and cultural bodies that statues and other historical objects “play an important role in teaching us about our past, with all its faults” and that “we should seek to contextualise or reinterpret them in a way that enables the public to learn about them in their entirety”.

The MA has been supporting museums to undertake this work and providing ethical guidance to our members. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss the issue with government.

However we are concerned that the Secretary of State’s recent letter asks museums to notify the government of any activities in this area; implies that government funding may be withheld if museums do not comply; and denies museums the responsibility to take carefully considered decisions about contested heritage in consultation with staff and their communities.

We feel that this contravenes the long-established principle that national museums and other bodies operate at arm’s length from government and are responsible primarily to their trustees.

The MA holds the widely respected Code of Ethics for Museums, which was created in consultation with a wide-range of museums and stakeholders and is aligned with the Arts Council England’s Accreditation scheme. Under the first principle of public benefit it states that museums should:

“Ensure editorial integrity in programming and interpretation. Resist attempts to influence interpretation or content by particular interest groups, including lenders, donors and funders.”

In these challenging times we believe that all museums must be able to make decisions relating to the care, presentation and interpretation of our cultural heritage in discussion with their communities. This principle is a vital factor in ensuring that museums build and retain public trust and act as responsible and responsive public institutions.

The MA is therefore:

Urging the UK Government to respect the arm’s-length principle for museums; and reminding our members across the UK that their responsibility under the Code of Ethics for Museums is to:

• Provide public access to, and meaningful engagement with, museums, collections, and information about collections without discrimination.
• Ensure editorial integrity in programming and interpretation. Resist attempts to influence interpretation or content by particular interest groups, including lenders, donors and funders.

We appreciate that this is a sensitive issue. We welcome the government’s request for a virtual roundtable discussion with museums and ask that it takes the time to listen to our concerns that museums should be able to make considered ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis in consultation with their stakeholders and communities.”

When independence of thought is threatened, our freedoms are indeed in danger. Well done our museum curators. To score political points at the expense of freedom is an outrage.