University of Essex apologises to Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman for infringing their freedom of speech

I am surprised we haven’t had any perspective from some of our regular legal posters on this like we have had with some of the cases recently.

I'm so very pleased I read this thread. A while ago my dc's school announced plans to train a stonewall champion. I wrote to them with some concerns and my email was acknowledged but my points were not addressed. The school seem to have gone quiet on the topic so I'm hoping the plans get shelved, but if I get any indication they are going ahead then I'll be sure to direct the school to this report.

Recommendation 22 | The University should set up a Working Group to devise and implement a strategy for repairing relationships between trans and nonbinary University members and those with gender critical views, in particular women. In doing so it should bear in mind its duty to pay due regard to the need to foster good relations between people with particular protected characteristics and others. The Working Group should consult as widely as possible with individual members of the University, staff and student groups, the Inclusion Champions, Human Resources, Student Wellbeing and Inclusion Services and the Students’ Union. It should enable University members to contribute to the development of this strategy in a strictly confidential environment or anonymously.

This is a very important statement really, no debate is off the table no matter what Stonewall say. This statement puts fostering good relationships ahead of stonewall's policy badging scheme. It's about time.

@Fernlake

Fear of the backlash if they do the right thing. Terrifying isn't it?

Even when we know who is in the wrong, even when it's written in black and white by an esteemed, independent third party, it's still not enough for people to prioritise women and their safety / right to have an opinion. That's how big the fear of being phobic is. Chilling.

To be absolutely fair to the University leadership I think not dropping Stonewall, but adding additional partners may be a sensible tactical move in terms of internal politics. Dropping Stonewall completely would cause a huge outcry internally and the pro-Stonewall voices within the University would complain loudly and publicly. Pink News and its ilk would take up the cause and there would need to be a great deal of time and energy expended on managing the situation.

I also think it's far better to let Stonewall keep exposing themselves. Better, really, in terms of exposing Stonewall's falsehoods, to keep them in the room, and challenge them. Freedom of expression in action

local press

www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19312069.essex-university-trans-rights-row-university-acted-unlawfully/

If I recall correctly stonewall were quite threatening towards Allison Baileys chambers, citing 'reputational' damage if they were no longer part of stonewalls schemes. It makes me wonder how many organisations members just to avoid the grief stonewall could cause.

In any case the University have been told clearly that stonewall can not be trusted when it comes to the law. They would be wise not to ignore that.

As noted here, the University are resisting the Stonewall bit of the report:

The University intends to implement all of the recommendations save for the recommendation that it give consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall in light of the drawbacks and potential illegalities identified in the report as having arisen from that relationship.

Although that reading is possibly a bit strong. The university's own list of actions are equivocal:

Stonewall has been a valued University partner and we have been working with Stonewall across a wide range of issues.

We will review how we address the specific issues raised in the report. We want to work with Stonewall and others, as the University takes steps, within the context of Action 10, to repair relationships amongst University members.

Any sign of this having been picked up in the MSM?

The shiny Stonewall brand is rapidly tarnishing, Baroness Nicholson's work on lobbying groups and their reach and influence within Government will further blemish it, pretty soon it won't be at all shiny and people and places will be scrabbling to distance themselves from it.

Stonewall again...

On a day when I was dismayed to discover my DC's school bragging about its shiny Stonewall Champion status I am glad to see this lobby group's current lack of integrity being held to account elsewhere.

The wheels can't come off this particular bandwagon soon enough. Stonewall is no longer fit for purpose.

This is very useful. Worth raising with uni HR departments if you can. I will.

It's only as I've read the full report I've realised how important this is. To see Stonewall criticised like this is wonderful. It's really made my day.

The poor me, cry babies that may find reading material related to gender distressing and triggering have no problem spouting vitriol and hatred at those holding GC views and frankly shouldn't be pandered to at all.

I've just spent a glorious hour or so working my way through that whole report (on a tiny phone screen) - or at least the bits that aren't redacted.

A really concise summary of the relevant issues, laws, case laws, errors in interpreting and general situation.

I think this will be another watershed moment. I'm sure it will be important beyond Essex uni. Between the ehrc and this report it feels like the uncapturing process has started. Everyone puuuuulllll.

The barrister who wrote it (I looked up) has huge amounts of relevant experience and expertise.

But there are a few things that suggest how difficult the culture change will be:
-the action responding to criticism of stonewall is lacklustre. It's really noticeable.
-the trigger warnings are given because of the upsetting views on gender, but not because of female academics being likened to holocaust deniers or targeted with violent leaflets.
-support is offered to anyone affected, but only lgbt students/staff are mentioned as a group who might need it (even tho no discrimination against them was found), not female staff/students (who are told that their uni might have committed sex discrimination) or gender critical staff & students whose views were targeted.
-Trans advocate academics at the uni, who are on twitter performing their feeling of being unsafe & consoling each other, have either not read the report, or are deliberately missing the point.

But the report is so sensible.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine thank you!

www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2021/05/17/review-of-two-events-with-external-speakers

Is the report publicly available? I can’t access Twitter.

Oh dear, Stonewall had better get their rainbow stationery out to write another scolding open letter!

Just read the THE write up of this and it's very factual and unbiased. Stonewall is mentioned
"It also recommends that the university consider the “relative benefits and disbenefits” of its relationship with LGBT rights group Stonewall. “In particular, it should consider that this relationship appears to have given university members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution,” the review says"

For those who are unaware LegalFeminist have written some articles on guidance provided by Stonewall including legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/