Key Takeaways
- Misan Harriman, chair of the UK’s publicly funded Southbank Centre, announced he will not seek a third term and will step down in autumn 2026.
- His decision comes amid mounting controversy over social‑media comments perceived as antisemitic, including remarks about Israel, a stabbing incident in Golders Green, and a comparison of Reform UK’s election gains to Nazi‑era events.
- The Charity Commission, Arts Council England, and an internal Southbank Centre review are examining complaints, while Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has asked officials to engage with the bodies involved.
- Harriman’s supporters—including Greta Thunberg, Mark Ruffalo, and other artists—have defended him, claiming a smear campaign by right‑wing media, whereas groups such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed his resignation.
- Succession planning is already underway, with the Centre confirming that further details will be shared in July.
Announcement of Departure
Misan Harriman, 48, revealed earlier this week that he will not pursue another term as chair of the Southbank Centre, the nation’s largest publicly funded arts venue located on London’s South Bank. In a since‑deleted social‑media post he wrote that his departure had long been planned, stating, “It’s semi‑public knowledge that my term is coming to an end anyway… I had decided way before this madness that I was going to do two terms.” Harriman emphasized that he intended to serve two terms after joining the board shortly after the COVID‑19 pandemic and then hand over leadership to his successor. The Southbank Centre confirmed it had been informed of his decision earlier in the year and noted that succession planning is already in motion, with further details expected to be disclosed in July.
Background and Role at Southbank Centre
Before his tenure at the Southbank Centre, Harriman gained public recognition in 2020 for photographing a Black Lives Matter protest in London, a project that aligned with his self‑description as a photographer and social activist. Appointed chair in 2021, he oversees an institution that attracts millions of visitors annually and hosts a diverse program of music, dance, theatre, and visual arts. His leadership has been marked by efforts to broaden accessibility and to foreground contemporary social issues within the Centre’s programming. Despite these initiatives, his recent conduct on social media has drawn intense scrutiny, overshadowing many of his institutional achievements.
Controversy Over Social Media Posts
The controversy intensified in April after two Jewish men were stabbed in the Orthodox‑Jewish neighbourhood of Golders Green. Harriman posted on social media questioning why a third victim—a Muslim man—had not been mentioned by the press or the Metropolitan Police, writing, “Wait, so there was a 3rd victim on the SAME DAY who was Muslim?! And our press isn’t reporting it? Even the Met Police didn’t mention the Muslim victim in its X post?! What is going on @metpolice_uk ?” Although the Muslim victim did receive coverage, Harriman’s focus on the alleged omission was interpreted by critics as downplaying the antisemitic motive behind the attack.
Following the May 7 local elections, in which Reform UK made notable gains, Harriman shared a post that critics claimed likened the party’s electoral success to the events that precipitated the Holocaust. Reform MP Robert Jenrick responded on X (formerly Twitter), calling the comparison “disgusting.” Harriman’s office later directed inquiries to a New World article arguing that the backlash constituted a “confected outrage,” noting that Harriman had already decided to step down before the allegations surfaced and that he had condemned the Golders Green stabbing in a separate post.
Responses from Authorities and Investigations
The growing alarm prompted more than 64 Members of Parliament and peers to write to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy in May, urging the government to open an investigation into Harriman’s conduct. They argued that his public statements had not received sufficient scrutiny, potentially eroding trust in a publicly funded institution. Nandy confirmed that the Charity Commission and Arts Council England were examining complaints, alongside an internal review launched by the Southbank Centre itself. Her office told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that she had asked officials to liaise with the Southbank Centre, Arts Council England, and the Charity Commission on the matter, while emphasizing that the Centre was conducting its own investigation in line with its governance obligations.
The Southbank Centre responded to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency by stating, “As with any allegation or concern raised about our staff, we are following our established internal processes carefully and in line with our governance obligations.” This statement underscored the institution’s commitment to due process, even as external bodies examined whether Harriman’s remarks violated equality or antisemitism safeguards tied to public funding.
Public and Political Reaction
Political reaction has been split along ideological lines. Supporters of Harriman, including high‑profile activists and artists, have rallied to his defence. A petition organised by The Good Law Project in May garnered signatures from figures such as Greta Thunberg, actors Aimee Lou Wood, Mark Ruffalo, and Susan Sarandon, director Yorgos Lanthimos, and journalist Mehdi Hassan. The petition accused right‑wing media of orchestrating a smear campaign against Harriman and argued that his commitment to social justice should be weighed against isolated missteps.
Conversely, watchdog groups such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed his decision to step down. In a post on X, the organisation wrote, “Mr Harriman’s decision to step down – supposedly always his intention – is welcome. This saga has exposed a rot in the arts world. We hope that his successor will be more worthy of the post.” The contrasting responses illustrate the broader societal debate about where to draw the line between legitimate criticism of state policies and speech that may veer into hateful or discriminatory territory.
Support from Activists and Artists
The petition organized by The Good Law Project framed Harriman as a target of a politically motivated backlash rather than a genuine antisemite. Signatories highlighted his record of advocating for racial justice, his documentation of the BLM protests, and his broader activist ethos. They argued that the intense media focus on a few social‑media posts ignored his longer‑term contributions to inclusivity at the Southbank Centre and suggested that the criticism was part of a wider effort to silence progressive voices within cultural institutions.
This defence underscores a tension present in many publicly funded arts organisations: balancing the imperative to uphold antisemitism safeguards with the desire to protect artistic freedom and activist expression. Harriman’s case has become a flashpoint for that debate, with each side citing the same set of facts to reach opposing conclusions about his suitability for leadership.
Institutional Response and Succession Planning
Despite the controversy, the Southbank Centre has moved swiftly to ensure continuity. The Centre confirmed that Harriman had communicated his intention not to seek a third term to the deputy chair as early as January, and that the decision was independent of the recent allegations. Succession planning, they said, is already underway, with further details slated for release in July. The institution emphasized that it remains committed to its mission of providing world‑class arts programming while adhering to the highest standards of governance and accountability.
The impending leadership transition offers an opportunity for the Southbank Centre to reaffirm its dedication to inclusivity, transparency, and community trust. How the new chair navigates the lingering sensitivities around antisemitism, activism, and public funding will likely shape the institution’s reputation in the coming years.
Conclusion and Implications
Misan Harriman’s impending departure from the Southbank Centre marks the end of a tenure characterized by both notable advocacy for social justice and significant controversy over his online commentary. While he maintains that his decision to step down predated the recent allegations, the timing has intensified scrutiny of how public arts bodies handle potential antisemitism among their leadership. The ongoing investigations by the Charity Commission, Arts Council England, and an internal review will determine whether any breaches of governance or equality duties occurred.
Regardless of the outcome, the episode highlights the challenges faced by cultural institutions in reconciling their roles as platforms for progressive discourse with their obligations to uphold anti‑discrimination standards. The Southbank Centre’s forthcoming leadership change will be closely watched as a test case for how such organisations can preserve artistic vitality while maintaining public trust in an increasingly polarized societal landscape.