Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Update on the National Library of Scotland debacle.

190 replies

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 15/10/2025 21:17

After the NLS removed The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht from the Dear Library Exhibition they received so many complaints The Library commissioned an independent review of the process leading up to the decision not to include the book.

This reviewer, an advocate and independent member of the Scottish Bar, was asked to investigate:

  • The process for the public nomination
  • The initial selection of items for the exhibition
  • The decision to review the initial selection
  • Whether appropriate corporate governance processes, including equality impacts assessments were followed throughout
  • What influencing factors may have contributed to the decision.

As one of the many people who lodge a complaint, I received an email today with the finds of the investigation. I can’t link to it, because it’s just a document, and I couldn’t find a copy of it on the NLS’s website, although it due to be posted there. I thought I'd post this in case anyone was wondering how it all turned out

Investigator's Summary
The process for public nomination and selection of books to be included in The Book That Shaped Me was reasonable and appropriate. The LGBT Staff Network and allies raised concerns that 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' had been selected, because members considered it was discriminatory and exclusionary and involved a risk of serious harm to staff and visitors. Those concerns were appropriately escalated, and the National Librarian ultimately assumed responsibility for deciding whether the book should be included. She decided it should not, and that was supported by the Chair of the Board. That decision was based on inadequate risk assessment, informed by inadequate evidence and consultation. The decision did not uphold the aims set out in the Library's Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policy.

By my reading of the report, it’s clear that the CEO and the Chair of the Board caved to pressure from the alphabettie Staff Action Group.
The investigated didn’t buy any of the sorry excuses that the staff gave for it being withdrawn, the report corrected a couple of what I would call lies, but the investigator didn’t, that were put forward in an attempt to justify the action.

The 2 main reason’s the Staff Group gave were the book contravened the NLS EDL policy, and that having in the exhibition would be a threat to the safety of staff.

The report points out that excluding a book written by gender critical women was not inclusive, and that by pulling the book the NLS were the ones who contravened their own EDI policy. It also stated that neither the CEO nor Chair made any attempt to risk assess the alleged threat to staff.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Igmum · 16/10/2025 09:04

Well done to that investigator and for shame to the librarians who chose to censor (legal, courteous) accounts they simply didn’t agree with.

nicepotoftea · 16/10/2025 09:01

anyolddinosaur · 16/10/2025 08:00

What a shame I no longer interview people. An interview question could be is seeing a library book harmful to children or perhaps is reading Harry Potter harmful to children.

Great question, given that Harry Potter books have been burned by different people for different reasons.

That decision was based on inadequate risk assessment, informed by inadequate evidence and consultation.

It's worrying that a National Library should be so willing to adopt this approach to books - that there wasn't more reflection regardless of who was asking for books to be removed.

DialSquare · 16/10/2025 08:18

Do people not have any pride in just a tiny bit of resilience anymore? We all know their “fear of harm” is bollocks but to actually want to be perceived as pathetic as this, just baffles me.

SirChenjins · 16/10/2025 08:03

Harm from their own for daring to capitulate, of course.

anyolddinosaur · 16/10/2025 08:00

What a shame I no longer interview people. An interview question could be is seeing a library book harmful to children or perhaps is reading Harry Potter harmful to children.

SammyScrounge · 16/10/2025 01:30

It is painful to drop a copy of the book on your foot , I suppose.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/10/2025 23:02

“Serious harm” FFS. What is their definition of “serious harm”?!

WimbledonWhites · 15/10/2025 22:46

Amina Shah was on Front Row on Radio 4 tonight. I didn’t get a chance to listen properly but I was very surprised to hear this was going to be covered on the BBC.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 15/10/2025 22:44

"Serious harm" FFS.

If they're that scared of a book they could just not read it.

And any library staff with such severe bibliophobia are in the wrong job.

As least the investigstor seems sane. But seriously, what a world.

DrBlackbird · 15/10/2025 22:35

Meanwhile real women are subjected to real serious harm in the real world.

And absolutely incredible that the National Librarian advocated censorship.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 15/10/2025 21:46

Oh it gets worse, there was a Union involved, and the risk was 'serious harm' could come to the staff.

"(3) it involved a risk of serious harm to staff and visitors. The recognised trade union supported the Network and advocated to exclude the book from the exhibition because it involved "a very real issue of harm to staff and the risk of discrimination".

OP posts:
Hoardasurass · 15/10/2025 21:33

LondonGirrrrl · 15/10/2025 21:24

What was the threat to staff?

Hurtful words ie facts such as men cant be women

Apollo441 · 15/10/2025 21:32

There wasn't a threat to staff. There was a threat FROM staff.

StoreBoughtWoman · 15/10/2025 21:27

LondonGirrrrl · 15/10/2025 21:24

What was the threat to staff?

Hurty feelz

LondonGirrrrl · 15/10/2025 21:24

What was the threat to staff?

Swipe left for the next trending thread