Which government wants to control what we know and think?

 

Reminder: to continue to receive automatic notifications of blog posts   On 31 July Google will no longer automatically send you emails to tell you there is something new to read on my blog. If you would like to continue to be alerted to new posts by email please send me a message headed “Notifications of blog” to: ianjacobsipswich@gmail.com

 

I recently came across a statement concerning museum displays and exhibitions. One sentence, in particular caught my eye. “Publicly funded bodies have a duty to operate in a way which is impartial and not motivated by activism or politics.” I wonder how many of you could guess what government made this statement. Could it be the authoritarian government of Hungary, or perhaps Poland? Might it be the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, or perhaps of Vladimir Putin in Russia?

 

Could it possibly be the government of my own country, ruled by the oldest Parliamentary system in the world? After all, that same government recently proposed to appoint a ‘free speech champion’ to investigate possible infringements of free speech on university campuses. Well, yes. The statement was issued to The Guardian by the Department for Culture Media and Sport. The full statement reads:

“Publicly funded bodies have a duty to operate in a way which is impartial and not motivated by activism or politics. The government’s policy of ‘retain and explain’ on issues of contested heritage fully respects the independence of museums and galleries, as the chair of the National Museum Directors’ Council has acknowledged.” [For a previous piece on this subject see A Threat to Freedom of Expression That is Too Close for Comfort, published on 28 February 2021 at https://ianjacobsipswich.blogspot.com/]

 

The government has proposed a new law to protect “20,000 statues and monuments throughout England for future generations.” “The new legal protections mean that historic statues should be ‘retained and explained’ for future generations. Individuals who want to remove any historic statue, whether listed or not, will now require listed building consent or planning permission.” At first sight, this might be a reasonable proposal to address contemporary concerns about monuments to men (almost invariably men) who, for example, were involved in the slave trade or who were oppressive colonialists. However, this measure is part of a much broader concerted campaign to position the government as the patriotic defender of our British heritage from activists who, we are warned, want to ‘rewrite’ history.

 

Similarly, the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, a man who appears to have little understanding of education, has announced that a free speech champion will be appointed to investigate infringements of free speech in higher education. Universities UK, the body that represents UK universities, noted: “There are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech and universities are required to have a code of practice on free speech and to update this regularly.” Mr Williamson appears to believe that free speech in under assault by “activism or politics” and that universities are unable to define and sustain free speech – so the government will do that for them.

 

The real consequences of the government’s war against activism and politics is already apparent. Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport recently refused to reappoint as a trustee of the Royal Museums Greenwich Dr Aminul Hoque, whose work “focuses on issues of multicultural Britain, identity, social justice, youth policy, religion, race relations and Islamic feminism.” The chair of the Royal Museums, the billionaire Sir Charles Dunstone, hardly a radical political activist, resigned in protest. And the history of science author Sarah Dry withdrew her application to be reappointed as a trustee of the Science Museum Group because she was asked, as a condition of reappointment, to support the government’s retain and explain policy. Trustees can hardly be independent if they are required to support government policy.

 

Meanwhile, Mr Williamson has decided that funding for “high-cost subject funding for other price group C1 subjects – that is, for courses in performing and creative arts, media studies and archaeology” should be reduced from £36 million per year to £19 million. These, it seems, are not “strategic priorities”. Perhaps those who study these subjects are too political or activist for Mr Williamson’s taste.

 

Museums and universities thrive on independent scholarship and education, presented without fear of interference from government or other special interests. Government diktats are to be expected in countries ruled by dictators, not in the United Kingdom. Mr Williamson may be a fool, but his colleagues in government are not. This is the government that “Got Brexit done”. It is now reinforcing its political support by protecting those who “wanted their country back” from nasty activists out to denigrate their history. To undermine the independence of our museums and universities in pursuit of such a shallow self-serving political agenda is shameful.