RA says it has thought long and hard
Courtesy of What a Maroon here is the actual “apology”:
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: press.office@royalacademy.org.uk
This is almost the tentative first draft of an almost apology. They spend more time angsting over the form and etiquette of the announcement of their immediate banning response (sorry, we fucked up by announcing our actions via social media in a shitty way) rather than the fact of their banning response, and that it occurred at all (sorry, we fucked up, because we did this shitty thing, which we should not have done at all). It looks like they’re grudgingly accepting the need for freedom of expression even when it results in “hurt and outrage.”
Are they going to broadcast this “apology” (as far as it goes) as widely as the original, defamatory communication announcing their removal of de Wahls’s works? Are they going to say that what she said is not actually transphobic? Are they going to say that the complaints to which they (so cravenly) responded had no merit? Are they going to be more careful in future about unhesitatingly caving in to vexatious complaints, without investigation and thought beforehand?
I hope she sues them anyhow. Not because I would wish her the further anxiety, inconvenience, and expense of the resulting court proceedings, but to make these bastards squirm, and pay for their kneejerk misogyny and cowardice.
I see no offer to resume carrying her work. They probably know she would tell them to piss off at this point, but still. I guess that would interfere with their time to “reflect on this” (translation: hope it goes away). Spineless jerks.
The apology is worthless without rectifying the situation by reversing their decision. The “we will reopen discussions” is garbage, discussions shouldn’t have been closed in the first place. Free speech as long as it doesn’t offend the trans cultists.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
Surely this is one of the main aims of art. Although maybe not in the case of Jess’s material art, only in her written work.
Serano’s “Piss Christ”. Picasso’s “Guernica”. Magritte’s “The Rape”. Woody Guthrie’s catalog. Mapplethorpe’s BDSM photography. A longer list can easily be compiled.
What a craven, mealy-mouthed bit of institution-speak.
I started work early this morning, so I was just in time to hear Jess DeWahl at the end of R4’s Today Program. I think she was talking to Justin Webb (starting to cement his Terfdom there) and said she had in fact had a phone call, total breakdown of communication within the RA, never should have happened, very sorry etc. She has accepted the apology because she thought it was sincere, she has given permission for the RA to continue selling her work, and she “bloody well hopes” that’s the end of it. So it does sound like the actual conversation came across better than this statement.