Jess de Wahls

I hope she tells them to sod off when they begrudgingly offer to restock her bestselling art.

Good to hear they have backtracked. I think organisations are beginning to realise that they can't allow the trans lobby to take control of their Twitter feeds. Which is something.

Also ‘Give them enough rope…’

I am delighted to see the apology. Could be better of course but still an acknowledgment that their behaviour was wrong and that is important to me.

Hooray! I take heart from that statement from the RA.Well done everyone on MN who got involved.

Over the past few years I have literally had my sleep effected by the erosion of women’s rights and the wilful mis representing of this as transphobia by those who should know better.

I am so thankful to mumsnet for giving me hope.

We haven’t won yet but it’s good to know that there are so many out there who will speak out that we will, surely, win in the end. 🤞

“… our most important core value – the protection of free speech.”

Saw this on Twitter. As it happens I also went to the Ai Weiwei exhibition which was really powerful. Especially his exhibit of his imprisonment.

I'd like to think that he has also been in touch with the RA - how can they possibly support an artist who fight for freedom of expression and behave like this?

I'm glad they've apologised and given consideration to their position for the future. I think it's a good step in the right direction with wider implications than the art world. Also it has been the most wonderful Streisand moment.

https://twitter.com/msmerrythought/status/1407232305526157315?s=21

This is a really positive step forward. Now institutions will be more hesitant to cave into the demands of the tiny sanctimonious minority on social media. Every little helps.

The Guardian article quotes Tatchell’s nonsensical “You can’t deny black or Jewish people’s identity so it’s double standards” thing again. What would it take for one single journalist to reply “Can I self-identify into either of those groups based on a feeling, Peter? No? Then it’s hardly equivalent.” Just once. Please.

Yup. The backward Science denier Royal Academy begrudgingly acknowledge that people who state objective biological facts should be allowed to do so too. Even if they don't fall into science denier propaganda territory.

It’s more of an apology than anyone in Jess’s position would have received this time last year, so I’ll hold on to the positives.

Between this, Maya and the Twitterstorm over Hubbard, it does feel like the tide is turning.

“… our most important core value – the protection of free speech.”

“Plurality of voices, tolerance and free thinking are at the core of what we stand for and seek to protect.”

“… our commitment to freedom of expression and to addressing complex issues through engagement and debate.”

I think their real values are expressed in their original statement.

I’m mean. I want to see a proper grown up apology!

So a wee mealy mouthed statement by RA - not quite ‘sorry not sorry’ but literally the very least they could have done - and way too late.

I don't need people to grovel and issue hostage statements. I'm not Woke. I just need them to do the right thing.

"We had no right to judge her
views on our social media. This betrayed our most important core value – the protection of free speech."

Glad to hear it. But they did. So how do they get past this conflation of word and deed?

Be interesting to see if we ever find out how they do indeed "look at their internal processes". It's a measured statement but that's a relief really. No doubling down, a bit of humility, and keeping it focused on Jess rather than trans politics all makes a bit of a change.

capitulate

It’s a big step forward even if the document itself is underwhelming. Other organisations will have seen this and will not want to find themselves in the same mess. It was very clear that the RA misjudged the public mood. Perhaps more significantly they exposed themselves to accusations of rank hypocrisy, very few large organisations would be able to avoid a similar accusation if they capitulation to a cancel campaign.
The balance of reputational risk is shifted against virtue signaling cancellation. The RA’s reputation has been more damaged by cancelling JDW than it would have been by coming out in defence of freedom of expression from the beginning.

There was continuing pressure they couldn't possibly just ignore and hope it goes away. I really hope it's a sign that the pendulum is finally going to swing the other way

Yes well. Still can’t quite raise more emotion on this than ‘meh’.

Mealy-mouthed and much too late (media statement from RA).

However - progress is made through dialogue.

What is missing is an acknowledgement that it was an act of institutional misogyny. If they don't acknowledge that they can pretend it doesn't exist.

Fox is brown?

royal-academy-production-asset.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/b5758780-33b8-47a9-9dea-0b3312981235/Royal%20Academy%20statement%2023.06.21.pdf

Sorry, can’t link from Twitter.

Yes, mealy mouthed towards Jess, but they have come up with a statement to which an arts organisation ought to hold itself accountable in terms of freedom of expression.

Media Statement from the Royal Academy of Arts

There has been a great deal of debate around the RA’s recent communication about no longer stocking the work of Jess de Wahls in the Royal Academy shop. We have thought long and hard since then about this and the wider issues it raises.

One thing is clear to us now – we should have handled this better. We have apologised to Jess de Wahls for the way we have treated her and do so again publicly now. We had no right to judge her
views on our social media. This betrayed our most important core value – the protection of free speech.

There was also a failure of communications internally which resulted in Jess de Wahls first hearing via social media that we would no longer stock her product in the RA shop. We will now reopen
discussions with her regarding the restocking of her work.

Plurality of voices, tolerance and free thinking are at the core of what we stand for and seek to protect. These events raise some fundamental issues. Freedom of expression can open up debate,
create empathy or respect for difference, it can also at times cause hurt and outrage. This has confirmed to us our commitment to freedom of expression and to addressing complex issues through
engagement and debate.

We will continue to reflect on this and to look at our internal processes to ensure we learn from it. We want to make sure we navigate this better in future.

For further press information, please contact: [email protected]
23.06.21

So a wee mealy mouthed statement by RA - not quite ‘sorry not sorry’ but literally the very least they could have done - and way too late.