A controversial book, initially banned from a prestigious exhibition, has sparked heated debate about free speech, inclusivity, and the role of libraries in navigating complex social issues. The core question: Was the National Library of Scotland right to initially exclude a "gender-critical" book from its centenary celebration? An independent investigation reveals that the book's removal was based on shaky ground and a lack of proper consultation.
The book in question, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, a collection of essays exploring gender-critical perspectives, was slated to be part of the "Book That Shaped Me" exhibition, commemorating 100 years of the National Library of Scotland. The exhibition aimed to showcase 200 influential books, selected from public nominations. Among the contributors to this particular book are notable figures like Harry Potter author JK Rowling, Scottish National Party (SNP) Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Joanna Cherry, and former SNP and Alba MSP Ash Regan.
But here's where it gets controversial… The book's inclusion faced immediate backlash. Members of the library's LGBT staff network voiced strong objections, arguing that featuring the book would be perceived as an endorsement of its views, which they considered "discriminatory and exclusionary." They even threatened to publicly denounce the library's decision and withdraw their participation from Pride events. The review later noted that the tone of these claims was "threatening and inappropriate".
National Librarian Amina Shah initially sided with the concerned staff, pulling the book from the exhibition. She told the BBC's Front Row podcast that her decision stemmed from concerns about the book's content, which she felt "detailed violence, aggression and anger online or in real life," clashing with the exhibition's intended tone. She also expressed fears that the highly charged nature of the gender debate could lead to potential violence against both the authors and library staff.
However, an independent review, conducted by an anonymous Scottish advocate, paints a different picture. The review concluded that the decision to remove the book was made with "inadequate evidence and consultation" and without a proper "risk assessment." And this is the part most people miss: The review specifically criticized Shah's failure to consult with individuals possessing demonstrable expertise in equality issues.
Following the review and subsequent discussions between the editors of the book (Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn), National Librarian Amina Shah, and the library's chairman, Sir Drummond Bone, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht was reinstated to the exhibition. The library also issued an apology to the editors for the lack of consultation in the initial decision-making process.
In response to the controversy, a spokesperson for the National Library of Scotland stated that the library's collections "span centuries, and we can use these to explore some of the most pressing issues of our time." They further emphasized the library's commitment to inclusivity and fostering respectful dialogue, asserting that "We will always be inclusive, and we will always welcome everyone to the library."
Lucy Hunter Blackburn stated that they are considering their response to the account in the report of the events within the National Library.
This incident raises fundamental questions about censorship, academic freedom, and the responsibilities of public institutions in navigating sensitive social and political landscapes. It highlights the delicate balance between protecting marginalized groups and upholding the principles of free expression. Is it the role of a library to curate content based on potential offense, or to provide a platform for diverse perspectives, even those considered controversial?
What do you think? Should libraries prioritize inclusivity by removing potentially offensive material, or should they strive to represent a wide range of viewpoints, even if some find those viewpoints objectionable? Share your thoughts in the comments below. This is a complex issue with no easy answers, and your perspective is valuable to the conversation.
