Update on the National Library of Scotland debacle.

[TheywontletmehavethenameIwant]

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The investigated didn’t buy any of the sorry excuses that the staff gave for it being withdrawn, the report corrected a couple of what I would call lies, but the investigator didn’t, that were put forward in an attempt to justify the action.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.

What was the threat to staff?

Hurty feelz

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

Hurtful words ie facts such as men cant be women

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".

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

And absolutely incredible that the National Librarian advocated censorship.

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Women Won't Wheesht have provided a link to the word document on Twitter here:

https://x.com/WWWheesht/status/1978495576397246817

Even from this, it's unclear what the LGBT Staff Network thought the actual "risk of serious harm to staff and visitors" might be. Although the recognised trade union for the Library 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".

So, it's clear what angle they were coming from

However, the Investigator, after talking to various members of staff and the leadership team takes the position that the risk concerned demonstrations from trans-rights activists disrupting the exhibition.

So, nothing to do with the book itself, rather extremist reactions to the book from people on one side of the debate.

The report says of the National Librarian:

"She considered risks may include protests at the Library which would disrupt the exhibition and operations more widely, with potential for violence directed towards both staff and visitors, ... She told me that she had read the book, and was concerned about accounts of protests, sometimes including violence, witnessed by authors."

So, since there had been violent protests against women in the past then she didn't want any of that sort of thing going on in her library and the simplest thing was just not to display the book.

However, the Investigator later says:

"I do not accept the Librarian undertook an adequate or appropriate assessment of risk to inform her decision. ... I found no evidence she considered appropriate means of mitigating the risks she identified. She did not, for example, consult police to identify the likelihood of protests and disruption, or whether there were means of managing those events to mitigate the risk and keep staff and visitors safe."

The report goes into a lot more details in all the areas that the Library got wrong. This is from the final section of the report:

"What influencing factors may have contributed to the decision

From my review and in discussions with staff it was clear that there were several factors involved in the decision. This included a desire to avoid controversy which may overshadow the celebratory nature of the exhibition, as well as potential damage to relationships with stakeholders and supporters of the Library which might result. It was also based on what I think was a genuine concern about risk of harm to staff and visitors, albeit I have found that was not adequately explored.

However, in my view, the main determining factor in the decision was advocacy by the Network and allies, supported by the Library's recognised trade union. They identified the book as posing a serious risk of harm to staff and visitors. Their indications they would "go public" and raise the issue with external stakeholders was a significant and weighty factor which led directly to escalation of the book's inclusion to the LLT and was seriously considered throughout the decision-making process. It is unclear whether the Network is intended to be an internal advocacy body or a group for mutual support. Nonetheless, it played a central role in objecting to the book's inclusion and ultimately having it excluded from the exhibition."

[emphasis added]

https://www.nls.uk/media/b1sfxcqi/dear-library-exhibition-independent-investigation-october-2025.docx

from https://www.nls.uk/about-us/plans-and-policies/corporate-documents/

well worth a detailed read.

So their objection was: 'We're afraid we will stir up adverse publicity and attack people.'

And that didn't give them a passing 'hang on a moment....'.

basically it was a the staff LGBTQIA++QWERTY groups causing a shit storm and threatening to "go public"

And bravely someone actually told them to fuck off.

I hope whoever made the “threatening and inappropriate” comments are being dealt with via internal procedures which is what should have happened in the first place

Maybe some sticking plaster manufacturer should make a plaster for that.

bravely someone actually told them to fuck off.

Eventually! But not the national librarian, not the union, not any of the layers it went through before getting so bad that it actually needed an independent legal investigation of whether a library should hold, display, and allow people to borrow a book.

Well, if you walk around with your eyes closed in case you accidentally catch sight of a highly dangerous book containing truths which you refuse to acknowledge because your understanding of basic biology is faulty, then serious harm could ensue if you were then to fall down into the deep pit of ignorance and gender woo that you have spent time helping to dig.

This is the only logical explanation

I like the fact that the investigator used expressions like 'I reject that' and 'I entirely reject those views', I also like the fact that they made a point of saying that by pulling the book the library didn't live up to it's own EDI commitments. The genderwangers are forever going on about inclusivity, so long as it doesn't include gender critical views, it's nice to see an official report say actually they do.