As cancelations go, it didn’t make waves. It was covered by the Free Speech Union, some nonmainstream websites and Britain’s Daily Mail. An eminent professor of history withdraws from his proposed talk at the National Library because the Library requested a change to the description of the talk on the event’s publicity. The offending phrase? A quote from a nineteenth century historian that the British Empire appeared to have been acquired ‘in a fit of absence of mind.’ It’s a well-used quote that captures the haphazard processes of imperial expansion from ancient Rome to the United States.
The initial explanation given by the National Library staffer who requested the quote be removed was that ‘our [the Library’s] director wasn’t keen on the quote.’ After being queried as to why, she replied the quote was ‘of concern’, that it ‘could be seen as us agreeing with Britain conquering the world’, that the matter was ‘political’, and that it was ‘the director’s wish to have it taken out.’
I am able to quote these emails because the historian involved, Professor Paul Moon, has made them available to me. The two emails are sent from a named official using a @dia.govt.nz email address (the National Library sits within the Department of Internal Affairs) and dated 12 December 2024.
From censorship to misrepresentation
What happened next moves from censorious to something worse. Someone unknown to Professor Moon wrote to the National Library requesting, under the terms of the Official Information Act, ‘What is the reasoning behind the National Library director’s request for Paul Moon to drop a quote from his work?’ In its formal response dated 30 January 2025, the Office of the National Librarian asserts ‘the quote referred to was to be used in an event listing and was too long to fit within the six lines available for the proposed event listing to be used on the National Library website and social media.’
This response is plainly, factually, wrong. The National Library’s email exchanges with Professor Moon did not mention word count, and did very explicitly refer to political sensitivities. Professor Moon’s initial text was well below the limit stated in the Library’s own ‘Information request for speakers & audio/video consent form.’ And the first email from the Library requesting the change asks for the quote to be replaced with ‘a sentence or two’ of something else. Clearly, the Office of the National Librarian is misrepresenting basic facts.
So we have a National Library that is censorious and untruthful. Disturbing, given the National Library is custodian of many official records of the nation’s history. It exists to preserve and disseminate information. An agency prone to distorting the record in favour of a sanctimonious vision of what is politically acceptable belongs in the propaganda toolkit of authoritarian regimes.
Truth and spin
Sadly, this kind of distortion is unusual only for being so clearly documented. Many professionals regularly engage in processes of tweaking, toning down, rewording and selective editing in order to serve their bosses or their own advantage. For some, it is an explicit part of the job. Corporate comms speak, or PR, refers to the art of massaging the record in ways that work for the client. We can expect the record to be strategically edited when it comes to corporate press releases and political messaging coming from politicians.
It’s a betrayal of public trust and purpose when those staffing ‘truth-seeking institutions’ – libraries, universities, the press – engage in this kind of agenda-driven censorship.
Why do they do it? Why would a professional whose entire professional ethos and purpose is to discover and disseminate accurate information sacrifice this commitment to political expedience or piety?
One can only speculate, but it seems to me that two things are likely to be going on when well-intentioned professionals appear to lose their minds in this way.
The moral imperative
First, I’d guess they have a pretty elevated sense of moral righteousness, a conviction that being morally right is what matters. Most of us, including officials staffing state bureaucracies, like to maintain beliefs about ourselves as essentially good people. It’s one source of cognitive bias that has repeatedly been shown to lead to all sorts of distortions and selective interpretation of evidence. This may be inherent to human nature, but surely becomes more salient the more overt moralism is adopted as part of an organization or professional sphere’s set of operating norms. And it’s not hard to find examples of such moralism becoming increasingly espoused in statements of organizational purpose.
It’s no longer enough to run a competent library service that informs the public accurately, or a university that pursues knowledge. Instead, our libraries and universities give prominence to statements of moral purpose and commitment. The University of Auckland, for example, says its purpose is to have ‘globally transformative impacts’, its vision is to be recognized for our ‘our unique contribution to fair, ethical and sustainable societies’ and its ‘fundamental principles reflect our foundational relationship with tangata whenua and our commitment to Te Tiriti.’ The National Library itself headlines its strategic directions to 2030 as ‘Turning knowledge into value.’
Fear
Second, it’s likely that a dose of fear helps professionals make sure ‘knowledge’ gets turned into the right sort of ‘value.’ Fear of upsetting the narrative. Fear of asking questions that might yield the wrong answers. Fear that kills curiosity.
Surely there is some very effective killing of curiosity behind the National Library’s request to delete the offending quote that the British empire was acquired in ‘a fit of absence of mind.’ The mere suggestion that colonial empire advanced in a haphazard manner, rather than according to some grand plan of imperial domination, is too uncomfortable to headline. Coming from a professional in a supposedly truth-seeking institution, this looks like losing one’s mind.
To be uncomfortable with historical interpretation means being uncomfortable with historical enquiry. Historical judgements such as how empires were acquired are very obviously not simple statements of descriptive fact. If one were the slightest bit interested in how and why colonial rule advanced, the motives and perceptions of colonial agents would seem pretty relevant. This should be a central question for anyone interested in either the past or present-day legacies and parallels. Far from condoning ‘conquering the world’, some of the sharpest criticisms of colonial intervention have been based on archival sources of colonial bureaucracies and neo-imperial ventures. Such research has shown that pathways to disastrous interventions were frequently buffeted by events and forces that officials did not control, along with an array of contending beliefs, assumptions and aspirations. Agents of imperial intervention often believed themselves to be doing the right thing, even as some also expressed doubt and dismay at how their ventures were working out.
Far from condoning imperial rule, these historical interpretations provide a useful reminder of both institutional capacities for self-delusion and the futility of populating history with nothing but a cast of cartoon heroes and villains.
I would be surprised if a professional such as the director of the National Library actually espouses a heroes and villains view of history. Indeed, the willingness to invite Professor Moon in the first place suggests that the Library does wish to foster discussion of different ways of interpreting history.
If so, the forces driving censorship and misrepresentation can co-exist with sincere efforts to do the right thing.
Natasha Hamilton-Hart has a PhD in Government from Cornell University and a BA (Hons) from the University of Otago. She publishes in the field of political economy. This article was first published HERE
I am able to quote these emails because the historian involved, Professor Paul Moon, has made them available to me. The two emails are sent from a named official using a @dia.govt.nz email address (the National Library sits within the Department of Internal Affairs) and dated 12 December 2024.
From censorship to misrepresentation
What happened next moves from censorious to something worse. Someone unknown to Professor Moon wrote to the National Library requesting, under the terms of the Official Information Act, ‘What is the reasoning behind the National Library director’s request for Paul Moon to drop a quote from his work?’ In its formal response dated 30 January 2025, the Office of the National Librarian asserts ‘the quote referred to was to be used in an event listing and was too long to fit within the six lines available for the proposed event listing to be used on the National Library website and social media.’
This response is plainly, factually, wrong. The National Library’s email exchanges with Professor Moon did not mention word count, and did very explicitly refer to political sensitivities. Professor Moon’s initial text was well below the limit stated in the Library’s own ‘Information request for speakers & audio/video consent form.’ And the first email from the Library requesting the change asks for the quote to be replaced with ‘a sentence or two’ of something else. Clearly, the Office of the National Librarian is misrepresenting basic facts.
So we have a National Library that is censorious and untruthful. Disturbing, given the National Library is custodian of many official records of the nation’s history. It exists to preserve and disseminate information. An agency prone to distorting the record in favour of a sanctimonious vision of what is politically acceptable belongs in the propaganda toolkit of authoritarian regimes.
Truth and spin
Sadly, this kind of distortion is unusual only for being so clearly documented. Many professionals regularly engage in processes of tweaking, toning down, rewording and selective editing in order to serve their bosses or their own advantage. For some, it is an explicit part of the job. Corporate comms speak, or PR, refers to the art of massaging the record in ways that work for the client. We can expect the record to be strategically edited when it comes to corporate press releases and political messaging coming from politicians.
It’s a betrayal of public trust and purpose when those staffing ‘truth-seeking institutions’ – libraries, universities, the press – engage in this kind of agenda-driven censorship.
Why do they do it? Why would a professional whose entire professional ethos and purpose is to discover and disseminate accurate information sacrifice this commitment to political expedience or piety?
One can only speculate, but it seems to me that two things are likely to be going on when well-intentioned professionals appear to lose their minds in this way.
The moral imperative
First, I’d guess they have a pretty elevated sense of moral righteousness, a conviction that being morally right is what matters. Most of us, including officials staffing state bureaucracies, like to maintain beliefs about ourselves as essentially good people. It’s one source of cognitive bias that has repeatedly been shown to lead to all sorts of distortions and selective interpretation of evidence. This may be inherent to human nature, but surely becomes more salient the more overt moralism is adopted as part of an organization or professional sphere’s set of operating norms. And it’s not hard to find examples of such moralism becoming increasingly espoused in statements of organizational purpose.
It’s no longer enough to run a competent library service that informs the public accurately, or a university that pursues knowledge. Instead, our libraries and universities give prominence to statements of moral purpose and commitment. The University of Auckland, for example, says its purpose is to have ‘globally transformative impacts’, its vision is to be recognized for our ‘our unique contribution to fair, ethical and sustainable societies’ and its ‘fundamental principles reflect our foundational relationship with tangata whenua and our commitment to Te Tiriti.’ The National Library itself headlines its strategic directions to 2030 as ‘Turning knowledge into value.’
Fear
Second, it’s likely that a dose of fear helps professionals make sure ‘knowledge’ gets turned into the right sort of ‘value.’ Fear of upsetting the narrative. Fear of asking questions that might yield the wrong answers. Fear that kills curiosity.
Surely there is some very effective killing of curiosity behind the National Library’s request to delete the offending quote that the British empire was acquired in ‘a fit of absence of mind.’ The mere suggestion that colonial empire advanced in a haphazard manner, rather than according to some grand plan of imperial domination, is too uncomfortable to headline. Coming from a professional in a supposedly truth-seeking institution, this looks like losing one’s mind.
To be uncomfortable with historical interpretation means being uncomfortable with historical enquiry. Historical judgements such as how empires were acquired are very obviously not simple statements of descriptive fact. If one were the slightest bit interested in how and why colonial rule advanced, the motives and perceptions of colonial agents would seem pretty relevant. This should be a central question for anyone interested in either the past or present-day legacies and parallels. Far from condoning ‘conquering the world’, some of the sharpest criticisms of colonial intervention have been based on archival sources of colonial bureaucracies and neo-imperial ventures. Such research has shown that pathways to disastrous interventions were frequently buffeted by events and forces that officials did not control, along with an array of contending beliefs, assumptions and aspirations. Agents of imperial intervention often believed themselves to be doing the right thing, even as some also expressed doubt and dismay at how their ventures were working out.
Far from condoning imperial rule, these historical interpretations provide a useful reminder of both institutional capacities for self-delusion and the futility of populating history with nothing but a cast of cartoon heroes and villains.
I would be surprised if a professional such as the director of the National Library actually espouses a heroes and villains view of history. Indeed, the willingness to invite Professor Moon in the first place suggests that the Library does wish to foster discussion of different ways of interpreting history.
If so, the forces driving censorship and misrepresentation can co-exist with sincere efforts to do the right thing.
Natasha Hamilton-Hart has a PhD in Government from Cornell University and a BA (Hons) from the University of Otago. She publishes in the field of political economy. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
It was outrageous that the Library staff acted this way.....that said it was more outrageous that the MSM ignored it....as per usual.
It is ignominious for a scholarly instiution to be so crass. Well done to set this out so clearly for all who care to read.
Is this what getting a PhD does? 15 words headlined as "Fear and Loathing" and leading to a marathon effort of academic analysis and big words. Supported of course by the Free Speech Union who are earning their living going after universities, libraries and other good target public institutions. Suggestion: get over yourselves.
Richard,
I’m interested to understand your comment. It’s clear that something about the article rubbed you wrong. Is it just the way she writes? Not the content?
Is your point that the article could have been better if it had been written in less formal words? It’s an old problem. The old philosopher Plato had a good name for that particular problem — he described it as “talking like a book”, and he tried hard to make his own writing more like ordinary, everyday talk. We academics always need reminders about it, about the need to avoid “big words” which might seem to have secret meanings, and which aren’t much use outside the academy.
I don't understand Richard either.
Post a Comment