The director of the British Museum has stated that cultural institutions are increasingly 'caught between opposing political pressures' following a controversy over the museum's decision to postpone a lecture scheduled as part of Jewish culture month. The talk was delayed due to concerns that it might be disrupted by protesters.
Background of the Postponement
Nicholas Cullinan defended the decision in a detailed statement posted on the British Museum's website, emphasizing that 'freedom of expression does not require institutions to provide a platform for disruption.' The lecture, titled 'Ancient Israel and Judah,' was to be delivered by Dr. Paul Collins, the keeper of the museum's Middle East department. It was postponed less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place, drawing criticism from several prominent figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, shadow attorney general David Wolfson, and historians Simon Schama and Simon Sebag Montefiore.
Reasons for Postponement
The museum reported that it had received credible information in the days leading up to the event indicating that between 25% and 50% of ticket holders intended to disrupt the lecture. Cullinan noted that the museum had to balance competing obligations, particularly given that thousands of visitors, including school groups, would have been present in the building at the time of the talk.
'Those attending the lecture had a reasonable expectation that they would be able to hear it and not unwittingly become a captive audience for another purpose,' Cullinan said. 'The curator delivering it had a right to do so without organized attempts to silence them. Balancing those responsibilities is not censorship; it is stewardship.'
Broader Implications
Cullinan added that the deeper issue extends beyond a single lecture. 'Across Britain, cultural institutions increasingly find themselves caught between opposing political pressures. The temptation is to interpret every operational decision through the lens of ideology. Yet not every decision is political.'
The museum has confirmed that the rescheduled lecture will take place later this month and will be livestreamed to allow broader access.
Event Details
The lecture was organized as part of the first Jewish culture month in the UK, which runs until 16 June. It is expected to explore the archaeology and history of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah through artifacts held by the museum.
Political Reactions
Kemi Badenoch called on the government to intervene, arguing that the decision undermined the aims of Jewish culture month. 'The government says it wants to combat antisemitism; it needs to tell publicly funded institutions like the British Museum to do what's necessary to put this event on,' she said.
Cullinan responded that a public talk that 'should have been unremarkable' became 'a flashpoint in a wider national argument about protest, intimidation, and the limits of free expression.' He emphasized that 'the event was not cancelled. It was postponed. That distinction matters.'
Museum's Stance on Protest
The British Museum is accustomed to protest, which Cullinan described as a 'healthy feature' of democratic life. However, he stressed that 'there is a fundamental difference between protest outside an event and organized disruption within it intended to silence and overwhelm, especially at such an understandably difficult moment for the Jewish community in the UK.'
Earlier this year, the museum faced criticism for removing the word 'Palestine' from some of its gallery labels. Last week, Jewish Artists for Palestine, a network of UK-based 'anti-Zionist Jewish artists, writers, creatives, and culture workers,' stated that it was 'entirely legitimate' to expect a publicly funded museum to host conversations reflecting 'different points of view.' They argued that treating debate as 'a security concern points to the event as a pro-Zionist propaganda exercise.'
Conclusion
Cullinan concluded by acknowledging that we live 'in uneasy times, when historical subjects are often drawn into contemporary conflicts.' He asserted that the answer 'cannot be to abandon difficult conversations. It must be to protect the conditions in which they can take place.'
