National Library of Scotland
Independent Investigation - 'Dear Library' exhibition
15 October 2025
1. Investigation brief
The Library has received a high volume of complaints about not including the book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' (hereafter referred to as the book) in our 'Dear Library' exhibition which is on until next year in our George IV Bridge building.
The complaints have been received from authors/contributors to the book, Library users and members of the public.
In most cases, the key question and outcome that complaints are seeking is:
- To review the decision to not include the book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' in the Library's 'Dear Library' exhibition.
With the advised preferred outcome from complainants:
- Include the above book in the 'Dear Library' exhibition.
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.
This report has been prepared by an advocate, an independent member of the Scottish Bar. The scope of the investigation was defined by the brief above, but the investigation was conducted independently. The writer identified and interviewed relevant staff and was provided with all documents requested from the Library.
2. 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.
I recommend the complaint be upheld.
2.1 Specific queries
The process for the public nomination
The Book That Shaped Me was a section of the Dear Library exhibition, as part of which people from around Scotland were invited to share a book that means something special to them and why. A public call for nominations was released online in June 2024 and in-person at the Library in August 2024. Though it was intended The Book That Shaped Me would have a physical presence in the Dear Library exhibition, the public call for nominations had a range of other objectives including informing the Library's wider centenary exhibition planning. This process was exploratory by design, with the public invited to nominate books without restriction, and exhibition themes to be later identified from those nominations.
Some staff suggested to me that the process for public nomination was not adequately considered or defined. I reject that. I accept the process was deliberately open and exploratory as an important means of "co-production" - working with public participants as partners to produce the exhibition. This process allowed public participants to meaningfully influence the content of the exhibition more than where professional curators clearly defined the parameter in advance. In my opinion, the process for nomination was clear, reasonable, and appropriate.
'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' received four online nominations, all of which were received in a window of about two hours on the same day.
The initial selection of items for the exhibition
Books nominated by the public underwent initial screening by Library staff. That was mainly intended to remove books obviously unsuited to a family-friendly exhibition, such as pornography. Selection criteria were then applied with the aim of including a diversity of genres, demographics, personal perspectives, and protected characteristics (such as age, sex, and disability), as well as ensuring books could be practically acquired.
Some staff suggested to me that the initial selection process was not adequately considered or clear. Some staff understood books with multiple nominations were automatically taken forward for inclusion and felt that was an inappropriate selection criterion. I entirely reject those views. Several books which received multiple nominations were not taken forward or included in the exhibition. I have found no evidence that number of nominations alone resulted in 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht', or any other book, being included. I accept that the selection criteria reflected the diversity of public nominations and broad nature of the exhibition and allowed an appropriate margin of staff discretion. The process for the initial selection of items was, in my opinion, reasonable and appropriate.
From about 500 nominations by the public, 200 titles were selected by Library staff to be included in the exhibition, including 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht'. It was selected because it added to the diversity of views represented, with staff noting the exhibition also included books with trans perspectives and narratives.
The decision to review the initial selection
Library staff recognised from an early stage that 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' may attract controversy due to the lively public debate on, and widespread public interest in, sex and gender issues. This was brought to the attention of senior managers including the National Librarian (the Librarian) informally, in early February 2025. The consensus of both the exhibition team and senior managers was that the book should be included because it added to the diversity of views represented in The Book That Shaped Me.
In early May 2025, members of the LGBT Staff Network (the Network) raised concerns with managers about including 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' in the exhibition. Those concerns were explored between members of the Network and managers over several days. Concerns expressed by the Network were (1) including the book would be an endorsement by the Library of the book's views, which they considered "discriminatory and exclusionary"; (2) this would be detrimental to the Library's relationship with marginalised communities and undermine efforts to make the Library a safe space for all visitors; and (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".
Senior managers met with leaders of the Network in mid-May who indicated that if the book was included, they would "go public", inform the Library's partners, and would not feel comfortable representing the Library at planned Pride events in June. I accept, as some staff told me, the tone of those indications was threatening and inappropriate.
The issue was escalated to the Librarian and the Library Leadership Team (LLT) because of both the strong feelings expressed by leaders of the Network, and potential disruption to planned public engagements. To assist the LLT's discussion, the book was assessed against the Library's Sensitivity Appraisal Framework, which sets out how the Library identifies and manages sensitive material including that which "may cause offence, discomfort, or dislike to persons, or categories of persons". The book 'passed' the sensitivity assessment. An equalities impact assessment (EqIA) was completed which showed a balance of considerations for and against including the book.
On 27 May 2025, the LLT met to discuss the concerns raised by the Network and to decide whether the book should be included in the exhibition. The Librarian personally assumed responsibility for making the decision because she recognised it was likely to be controversial whatever the outcome, and felt it was appropriate that she bear both the weight and consequences as the responsible officer and leader of the Library.
In addition to the views and material presented at LLT and discussions with the Network, the Librarian briefly consulted a very small number of public supporters of the Library. She did not attempt to consult the authors or editors of the book, or anyone with lived experience of gender critical views. She did not consult anyone with demonstrable experience or expertise in equalities issues. She told me that the decision was taken under significant time pressure because the exhibition was to open imminently, which limited opportunities for consultation and consideration.
The Librarian prepared a paper for consideration by the Board Chair in which she recommended the book should not be included in the exhibition. She expressly stated this was "not due to the content of the book itself or the views expressed, but to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the Library." She identified a "risk that [stakeholders] will withdraw their support for the exhibition and the centenary". 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, as well as damage to the Library's reputation and relationships with external stakeholders. She told me that she had read the book, and was concerned about accounts of protests, sometimes including violence, witnessed by authors. She told me she took the decision based on risk assessment but could not say how she assessed the perceived risks.
I do not accept the Librarian undertook an adequate or appropriate assessment of risk to inform her decision. Though she identified some risks, she could not say how she assessed and weighed them. I found no evidence she systematically identified risks, assessed the likelihood or seriousness of harm arising from each. 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.
I do not accept the decision was so time pressured as to justify the limited consultation and consideration undertaken. The Librarian was aware of the book's potential inclusion in the exhibition and the potential for controversy since early February 2025. Though I accept matters escalated when the Network raised concerns in early May, and there was further time pressure come the LLT meeting on 27 May 2025 due to the exhibition's imminent opening and preparation required for it, I do not accept consultation with a wider range of stakeholders was impossible. There was limited time available, but it was not utilised effectively, and the failure to consult those with contrary views was significant.
The Board Chair endorsed the Librarian's decision based on perceived risks, but in my opinion, those were not adequately interrogated. That was in part due to the inadequate risk assessment undertaken before escalation to the Board Chair. Consideration may have been strengthened if the Board Chair sought clarification on the risks, likelihood and seriousness of harm, and measures that might mitigate the risks identified.
Whether appropriate corporate governance processes, including equality impacts assessments were followed throughout
The decision to include or exclude the book was properly escalated in accordance with the Library's Scheme of Administration and Scheme of Delegation. The Librarian was entitled to assume personal responsibility for making the decision, as she would bear ultimate responsibility for it. She was in turn right to escalate to the Board Chair, as the issue involved significant reputational and operational risk.
Some staff involved in the various stages of consideration told me they had specific regard to the Library's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy. I found no evidence the Librarian or Board Chair expressly consulted the EDI policy or had it forefront in their minds, notwithstanding the decision involved balancing of equality considerations.
The EDI policy makes clear that the protected characteristics include those relevant to the decision: gender reassignment, sex, and belief (page 6). It also sets out the Library's commitments to:
- Ensuring EDI is considered in all aspects of what it does.
- Ensuring all staff understand their responsibility to promote EDI and challenge inappropriate behaviour.
- Working in collaboration with people with relevant lived experience and for changes and reviews to be informed by their thoughts and comments.
- Promoting a culture that actively values difference and recognises that people from different backgrounds and experiences can bring valuable insights.
In my opinion, the process which resulted in the decision to exclude 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' did not uphold the Library's expressed commitments. I find the policy and its aims were not considered, or at least not adequately considered, at the point the decision was made. The Library failed to work in collaboration with people with lived experience of gender critical beliefs, and failed to afford an opportunity for review of the book's inclusion to be informed by their thoughts and comments. The Library failed to promote a culture that actively values difference by failing to appropriately balance the interests of staff and visitors who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and those who share the protected characteristic of (gender critical) belief.
Though an equality impact assessment was undertaken to inform the decision, it was materially deficient. It discloses no consideration of the protected characteristic of belief, notwithstanding that was an important issue to be considered. Though relevant staff have had training on equalities and completion of EqIAs, the training was some time ago and was inadequate to inform this assessment.
