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The investigated didn’t buy any of the sorry excuses that the staff gave for it being withdrawn, the report corrected a couple of what I would call lies, but the investigator didn’t, that were put forward in an attempt to justify the action.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

Article from yesterday - this is the same open letter as last week?

I went to the National Library last night for the interview with Jenny Colgan that Amina Shah was supposed to do. She claimed a diary mixup a few days earlier and backed out.

Jenny Colgan was excellent. Engaging, observant, insightful and informative. She takes her work seriously and that includes research and understanding her readers. Which may account for her having sold 50,000,000 books in a genre mainstream media don’t take seriously.

I was irritated by the prominent pride progress lanyards worn by a number of customer facing staff but as an adult in a library, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I felt unsafe.

Afterwards, I got the usual feedback form. It was in two sections, the event and about me to see who the event reached. The questions about me were on: Gender Identity (man/woman/prefer not to say/other); Age; Disability; Race. Not only was Sex not asked, it had clearly been supplanted by Gender Identity. That really is offensive.

The National Library don’t take Equality seriously.

Thanks for the report, Water. Sounds like a good event, marred by the continued pass-ag political polemic from the staff.

Someone needs to sort it out - or the NLS risks going the way of the CCA (last seen trying to signal 'help' with its eyes while performing public self abasement)

Yes, this is about the open letter from last week but crucially it’s more about the recent apology to the editors & authors from the Chair on behalf of the board. Plus an additional apology for the way the NLS press/pr person tried to smear the authors when the story broke.
To-date the network is still trying to portray themselves internally, as victims.
They have plenty of “allies” who will agree but what matters is all of you out in the real world who complained, wrote in and kept this issue on the agenda. As a result you’ve made it a much more tolerable place for me to work so I can’t thank you enough.

That's good to hear and I'm sorry you've been through the ringer at work over this @VoleForceOne .

I'm also in Scotland and we have also got a loud group of angry activist voices at work who push the equality agenda to focus on trans and gender ideology. The latest comms included some quite angry comments from activist staff about very reasonable, appropriate (and legal!) changes within the organisation. It amazes me how people will get angry if men's wants and feelings don't get prioritised at all times. I'll be interested to know if their voices are amplified as that's who the company usually listen to, despite it very much coming across as a temper tantrum. Sadly those who are supposed to be the adults in the room (ie Heads of departments) are also activists so no doubt will use these angry comments as a reason to push gender ideology more rather than return to more reasonable (and legal!) working obligations.

If I were anywhere near Edinburgh, I'd be really tempted to put on my best ally face, find a broken hoop earring that could pretend to be a septum piercing and, sympathetically, engage a rainbow lanyard wearing member of staff in conversation. I'm sure I could turn the chat into getting them to explain how the presence of this book is so detrimental to the genderborg because I haven't an earthly and I'm desperate to know. I've got a copy and, so far, I've survived its presence. I can only think it'd be quite painful if dropped on a bare foot but no more than any other book of that size.

Well I think its safe to say that the TRA staff have failed to get the book banned again even with their recent letter because the chairman of the board Sir Drummond Bone has formally apologised for banning the book and Shah is being forced to apologise and explain her interview about the book (cant wait to read that letter)

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/taxpayer-funded-national-library-scotland-36357377?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Apologies are all very well, but what is needed is change.

Concrete action. Genuine understanding of the issues and the seriousness of them.

Libraries banning books because of political pressure, suppression of dissent, preference falsification - its undermining the whole endeavour of a National Library.

Its not just about this or any one book, or this particular debacle - this is all symptomatic of rot in the system.

Libraries should not cave to cries to ban or suppress content. Unfortunately librarians are human and want easy lives or to avoid confrontation. And my boss justified not getting a copy of WWWW because “we’re doing cost saving measures and it won’t look good to buy something controversial when other things aren’t being bought”

This is disappointing .

or enraging