The State Library of Victoria (SLV) checked writers’ social media accounts for content relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict before cancelling the program they were due to present and terminating their contracts, internal emails have revealed.
In March, the library postponed a series of writing events for teenagers and terminated the contracts of the six writers engaged to present the workshops, citing concerns over “child and cultural safety”. Three of the writers – Omar Sakr, Alison Evans, and Jinghua Qian – speculated that the cancellation was due to their pro-Palestine stance.
The internal emails, which are heavily redacted and were obtained via freedom of information by a lawyer contracted by the three writers, shows Maxine McKew – a board member of the library and a former Labor MP and journalist – had requested a “clear read” on everything Sakr had posted after Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. The FoI documents do not make it clear how the investigation into Sakr’s posts started and at what point the board got involved.
The emails, sent from McKew to the library’s chief executive, Paul Duldig, in mid-February, noted a post written by Sakr, an award-wining poet, in the “immediate aftermath” of 7 October.
“Do we have a clear read on everything Omar Sakr has posted since then? If not, we should know and soon,” McKew wrote.
McKew noted in the email that Sakr was “perfectly entitled to air these views”, but the library “must adhere to a strict policy of neutrality”.
“It doesn’t mean we vet everyone for their social and political views,” McKew wrote to Duldig. “But it does mean on a subject such as Gaza/Israel we have a duty to be absolutely thorough and super careful about the way language is used by the people we engage.
“We need to be alert to what’s said and what’s not said.”
The next day, library staff were asked to do “a quick scan of the social and media coverage of the other presenters”, internal emails show. The name of the person who sent the request has been redacted.
A response to the request outlined content related to the conflict posted by the writers, including a post by Qian in “solidarity with Antoinette Lattouf”, who was found by the Fair Work Commission to have been sacked from a casual presenting role on ABC local radio after she posted a Human Rights Watch report about the war in Gaza.
Of the five posts outlined for Qian, four were related to Palestine, and one related to supporting the Australian academic Yang Hengjun – who has been given a suspended death sentence in China.
It also noted posts about other political issues, including by the young adult author Alison Evans, who alongside reposting “pro-Palestine content”, had posted about the “conflict in Sudan”, and “First Nations solidarity around change the date”.
Minutes from a meeting held on 19 February that included updates on programming outline that Duldig had read blog posts by Sakr and that “on these grounds there was no reason not to proceed with the presenter”. The minutes also show that Creative Victoria was contacted for “their advice”, and an action item was listed to schedule a meeting with the board.
The documents do not reveal who was involved in the final decision to cancel the series of events, or when that decision was made, and the SLV has repeatedly stated the cancellation was not based on the political beliefs or identity of anyone involved with the program.
McKew, who served on the library’s board until April this year, said in a statement: “My decisions as a board member are guided by the policy of political neutrality which covers all the major Victorian cultural institutions. This policy was required and restated by the state government during last year’s Voice campaign.
“The Library is being entirely consistent in applying this policy to the contentious issue of Gaza/Israel. My decisions as a board member have always been in line with state government requirements.”
Duldig told Guardian Australia that the documents “reaffirm” the library’s decision to postpone the writing workshop while it undertook a “program-wide duty of care review”.
“The postponement of the Teen Writing Bootcamp was not because of the political views of anyone involved with the program,” Duldig said.
“Concerns were raised with the library about the blogs of one writer, Mr Sakr, and these blogs were found not to require further action. In reviewing those concerns, the library did however find that its policies and procedures were not sufficiently robust, and therefore decided to undertake a program-wide duty of care review.
“The library has a clear duty of care to ensure that all stakeholders are free from vilification, racism and hate speech in all forms and at all times.”
Sakr told Guardian Australia the internal emails showed what he said he already believed to be the case: “their invocation of child safety as the reason for cancelling the program was disingenuous”.
Evans said SLV’s behaviour was “shameful”.
“[The way SLV] continued to assert that our views had nothing to do with the cancellations is appalling,” Evans said.
In a post on X, Qian accused the library of a “blatant act of censorship”.
A spokesperson for the SLV said the library “did not put together ‘dossiers’ on the writers” and that the documents released via FoI “reaffirm the decision to postpone the Teen Writing Bootcamp program, while the Library completed a program-wide Duty of Care Review”.
The spokesperson said the SLV “refutes the view that the writers’ views triggered the postponement of Teen Writing Bootcamp”, and rejected the claim that the event cancellations had anything to do with censorship.
“Across the library sector and other cultural institutions, there is active consideration about how to uphold the core value of respectful conduct for everyone involved in programs and activities. This has come into sharp focus given the current geo-political environment,” the spokesperson said.
Last week it was revealed that the library had warned its employees against wearing materials that “support or promote a particular political viewpoint”.
In March, staff at the library sent a letter to the libary’s board about the cancellation of the event, claiming senior management had sent a message of “censorship and discrimination” and that the “political” decision had damaged the library’s reputation and commitment to diversity.
