The decision by the government of Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella to remove dozens of objects and documents from the National Museum of Colombia has prompted a backlash from universities, heritage specialists, and representatives of cultural institutions.
The items, which were part of the museum’s permanent exhibitions in Bogota, were related to feminist movements, LGBTQ+ communities, victims of political violence, left-wing organizations, and the 2016 peace agreement signed with the FARC guerrilla group.
Academic communities warn that the measure goes beyond changes to exhibition spaces and raises questions about academic freedom, museum autonomy, and society’s right to learn about different interpretations of its history.
The National University of Colombia, the University of the Andes, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, and Universidad del Rosario have challenged the decision and called for procedures grounded in research, public debate, and professional standards.
Academics oppose De la Espriella’s removal of National Museum artifacts
The Master’s Program in Museology and Heritage Management at the National University of Colombia was among the first academic communities to publicly express its opposition.
In a statement released on October 18, it voiced concern over what it considers the silencing of collective memories and warned that excluding testimonies, objects, and narratives for ideological or political reasons contradicts the role of museums as spaces for research and critical reflection.
The institution defended the inclusion of the experiences of victims of the armed conflict, social movements, feminist demands, and communities with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities in historical exhibitions. Its central argument is that the significance of these testimonies should not depend on whether they align with the ideological preferences of the government in power.
The private University of the Andes also challenged the removal of the items and warned of its consequences for academic research, cultural management, and the representation of historically excluded groups. Its statement focused on the precedent that could be set by a government decision that changes how national history is presented without, according to critics, a sufficiently substantiated public process.
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and Universidad del Rosario joined the objections through their faculties of Arts and Creative Studies. Both called for respect for curatorial autonomy and for the research and conservation processes that should underpin decisions concerning cultural heritage.
The removed items and the debate over who tells history
Among the items removed from the “Making Society” and “Memory and Nation” galleries were objects related to LGBTQ+ history, documents on feminist struggles, and materials concerning political violence against Colombia’s left.
A campaign poster for former guerrilla fighter and presidential candidate Carlos Pizarro, items associated with the M-19 guerrilla group, and a pen made from a bullet that was used during the signing of the 2016 Peace Agreement also disappeared from the exhibition.
The removal also affected materials related to the Seventh Ballot Initiative, a student movement that pushed for institutional change in the late 1980s and contributed to the process that led to the 1991 Constitution. Taken together, the items addressed episodes of conflict, political participation, social demands, and the expansion of rights.
For academics who oppose the measure, removing these objects from public view could diminish the complexity of the historical narrative and sideline the experiences of groups that had limited representation in cultural institutions for decades.
Their position does not mean that exhibitions should remain unchanged, but rather that any modifications should be based on professional standards, research, and public debate instead of decisions dictated by the political orientation of an administration.
The backlash has also extended beyond universities. Modern art museums in Bogota, Medellin, Barranquilla, Cartagena, and Tolima, along with the Rayo Museum, expressed concern over the removal of the items and called for guarantees of independence for cultural institutions.
In their joint statement, they defended museums’ right to present complex and controversial aspects of history, including those that generate disagreement. They also warned that exhibition narratives can be revised, but only through research, curatorial reasoning, and dialogue with the communities represented.
The International Council of Museums in Colombia joined the critics and warned of the uncertainty the decision has created among cultural professionals.
Government defends review of exhibition content
The government has justified the changes by arguing that public museums should not become instruments of political indoctrination or present biased versions of history. Culture Minister Paola Holguin defended the review of museological and curatorial practices in institutions under her ministry’s responsibility.
President De la Espriella, meanwhile, has framed his cultural policy as a “cultural counterrevolution” aimed at combating what he considers ideological influence in public institutions. However, academic criticism focuses both on the substance of the changes and on the procedure used to remove the items, as well as the lack of a public review that would allow the criteria applied to be assessed.
The controversy has also reached the courts. On October 19, a judge in Bogota ordered that more than 30 removed objects be protected and kept safe while the court examines whether they should return to public display. The ruling added a legal dimension to a dispute that already pits the government against universities, museum professionals, and social groups.
The debate raises a question that extends beyond Colombia’s borders: how should public museums represent a history shaped by political conflict, inequality, and struggles for rights? For the universities and specialists who have spoken out, revising an exhibition is legitimate when it is supported by clear arguments and transparent procedures.
The risk, they argue, arises when political power decides which experiences deserve to remain visible and which should disappear from the collective narrative.
