BBC Front row interview. Transcription assisted by AI, I've checked it but there may still be errors:
x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1978787317176242404
FR: The Library of Scotland is celebrating its centenary with an exhibition called Dear Library. It's billed as a love letter to the power of reading and libraries and it features a display of books nominated by the public. But as we've previously covered here on Front Row, the decision making around the inclusion of one book in particular has soured the celebrations. The Women Who Wouldn't Wish is an anthology of essays by gender-critical women, including J.K. Rowling. The library initially selected the book for the display before concerns were raised by its LGBT staff network. This provoked a freedom of speech row, and the library then made a U-turn and reinstated the book. Today, an independent report was published, and Amina Shah, the national librarian, spoke to Front Row exclusively about the findings.
AS: The investigation was commissioned as part of our complaints process, so we had a really large volume of complaints, and we realised the real seriousness of this, and that it was important that we ask someone completely independent to review it and to give their perspective.
FR: to be clear, the investigation was about reviewing the process that led to first of all the removal of the book from the display, and then the reinstatement of the book
AS that’s right it was the process, just to clarify the book was never removed from the display, it was proposed to be included and then wasn’t.
FR: You told the investigation that you didn't remove it from the display or deselect it because of its content. It was because of what you perceive to be the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library. You were also concerned about accounts of protests, sometimes including violence.
AS: Yeah, sure and I absolutely accept the findings of the report. It was actually from reading the book, it detailed violence, aggression, anger that had either happened online or in real life ,and therefore I felt that the theme of the exhibition was about bringing people together and it was suppose to be celebratory – once I realised how highly polarised and charged the feeling was around it I felt it perhaps wasn’t the right book for this exhibition.
FR So you were concerned about the risk of violence towards authors featured in the book - because there is also suggestion that the book involved a very real issue of harm to staff and a risk of discrimination. Now this was from the LGBT staff network so there was harm, potential harm considered, to be going in both directions.
AS Exactly. As the report suggests I didn't do a sort of matrix of risks around that because I'd already been presented with various documents from people internally that did look at risk. But on balance I felt that there was potentially potential for strong feelings either way and didn't know what that might be and that that might not be what we wanted for this particular exhibition in our centenary year which has been so joyous.
FR Interesting that you're suggesting you shied away from showcasing strong feelings. Now, some listeners might suggest that strong feelings are exactly what a library should be able to handle.
In a letter of complaint from the book's editors, Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Susan Delgetti, they have claimed that you felt unable to stand up to the threats from your own staff, and in doing so, you sacrificed your principles. Were they right?
AS That I don't agree with. The staff that made representation were... people with lived experience who were putting over their perspective. It wasn't that they were telling me the book was harmful, but that the entire debate, for want of a better word, was very charged. And at this point in time, if you remember, it was May.
And in April, the Supreme Court decision had been announced. So what they were advising was that we have a whole community of people who feel very at sea and that the whole issue was quite fierce in Scottish society at this moment in time. I absolutely agree that libraries can and do constantly deal with different opinions. And we have over 64 million items in the National Library of Scotland. Our collections date back centuries. We want people to engage with all of those things. This isn't a about the access to the books which are in the reading room is about what we choose to put on in a public display in a public area and that's my clarification of that.
FR however as you said you got multiple complaints and then you performed a second U-turn you re-included the book in the display. And one major factor behind that decision was that a significant donor to the library said that he might reconsider donating in future to the library if the book was not included in the display. Should curatorial decisions be influenced by the opinions of private donors?
AS Actually, although that donor did say that, and I had a very good conversation with him, his opinion wasn't shared by multiple donors, and his opinion, much as I deeply respect him, was... wasn't the deciding factor.
We reflected on the fact that we had so many complaints. I spoke with the board and the board suggested that we reconsider the opinion and that we meet the authors. The authors had actually written to me to ask to have a meeting.
I feel that it's important to underline that we've got to get to a point in society where we listen to each other and I don't think it's particularly a negative thing to do that. But we did have donors who were supportive of the decision and others who weren't. But none of them withdrew any funding from us for the decision. Or threatened to do so.No, I think the donor in question was just making his point about how he felt about the decision, which was absolutely within his gift to do so.
FR How much damage has this done to the reputation of the library?
It's hard to measure damage, I suppose, in that sense. You know, it's not been an easy time for the library, but we have been on a journey, a journey of learning and talking about these things together. And actually, we've also widened that conversation across the library sector, but also across the cultural sector.
The exhibition has been well received. People love it. And what it does underline to me is how much people value libraries, how important it felt for people to have their book in the exhibition. I think what we've seen is that this exhibition was absolutely the right one for us in our centenary year and that libraries are at the heart of people's feeling about freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
FR The results of the investigation are made public today on your website alongside the library's response.
You personally accept full responsibility for the decision-making process and you've just announced a new chair as well. How do you as an institution move forward from all of this?
AS Well, I really hope that we will. We've taken some time. This is a very difficult and divisive topic. It's bigger than us. It's something that's across the world right now is a really big issue So I think we need to reflect.
We have apologised. We've reached out and made amends. We have so much fantastic work to do that we are desperate to get back to doing. And I'm really excited for the future for the National Library of Scotland and for libraries generally.
FR Your situation made headlines. Institutions around the UK will be listening very closely to this interview and reading the findings of the report very carefully. what is the learning, not just around that discourse, but around dueprocess.
AS It's obviously the case that the law is changing and it's developing all the time so organizations do need to be completely abreast of all of those things and we also need to take time to talk about all of that together and make sure we're all aware and we definitely are doing that but we're also really keen to talk to other cultural organizations, other libraries to share this learning and to support each other.