A statement from Professor Tim Blackman, Vice-Chancellor of The Open University regarding the recent employment tribunal judgment

I posted on another thread that I suspect the OUs legal advisers have read the judgement and not found any grounds on which to appeal. This is likely the first step in trying to reach a settlement before the remedy hearing.

Not on the witness list that I can see.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4923923-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-8?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

Did issue the first response to the judgement that was worded in an unfortunate manner and mentioned an appeal.

This. If you're a signatory to a letter that's been proved in a court of law to have harassed a colleague I'd expect getting another job might be quite tricky. Most decent academic jobs have plenty of applicants to choose from.

He sounds like an adult, unusually for ou. If he was one of the witnesses did he sound like an adult then? In which case where has he been and what has he been doing?
I don’t know if I’d quit if my name were on that letter, given how hard it is to fire academics it would seem like a terrible time to be looking for a job and having to defend any comments made about my lack of professionalism and harassment activities in the judgment. ‘So tell me, do you still engage in bullying staff out of their jobs? It’s just that we err frown on that sort of thing here’

I suspect you're correct.

However, pretending it never happened is at odds with the rhetoric about the major independent review of the internal working environment. I wonder if the review is part of a settlement with JP? If so, I'd be surprised if there isn't a timescale for the findings and, with that, a timescale to respond and implement at least the bromide of 'staff training'.

I've no idea how OU will cope with academic freedom of speech or thought in the interim.

They're not going to quit unless they have other jobs to go to. They won't be disciplined either. The OU will do its absolute best to pretend the whole thing never happened, and everyone will go about their jobs as normal.

I’m not a university graduate but there is no mention in this statement of believing the science or, umm, you know, reality.

I often wonder if bridges built these days by recent graduates should come with the warning “ we don’t believe the maths”.

there is quite the possibility of a lot of OU people quitting Monday morning

Is this your speculation or coming from staff's social media, please? For either, why would you expect them to quit?

I hope the judgement and this response to it helps Laura Favaro’s case.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4776028-dr-laura-favaro-is-taking-city-university-to-an-employment-tribunal?page=4

The investigation promised by Blackman could massively benefit from the research already done by Laura into experiences of feminist and GC researchers.

There is something simultaneously pleasing but also painfully ironic about seeing academic officialdom come to realise they need to look into this so very late in the day.

Agreed! We saw some of those names and witnesses in Phoenix's tribunal, didn't we.

So thrilled with themselves and their guerilla activities as The Hive.

Happily declaring that none of them recalled who'd drafted the Open letter and all of them had somehow lost the relevant WhatsApp when it came to taking the stand and speaking their truths and motivations under the open scrutiny of a tribunal setting.

Didn't pass muster with the tribunal attendees. Likewise with those who delivered the judgment.

They may well plot and the UCU might well support them. This is a true existential challenge for the OU and its survival.

I’m glad they’ve all had to read how they come across to others.

I wouldn’t be too surprised if some of those staff members are plotting to have this Vice Chancellor removed too, as we speak.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1350507620925633

Crikey.

Thank you for the link to the statement.

@RethinkingLife i suspect UCU will be a complete pain in the arse (and not in any way useful to the members).

Still who the OU bring in gives a good indication of how serious they are about reviewing. If it’s some ludicrous EDI consultancy… the answer is a foregone conclusion.

Similarly the terms tell us something about the stance from the senior leadership, even is they ultimately cannot force people who should contribute to contribute.

Does this mean that they are no longer considering appealing the outcome?

Finally an apology for Jo

What will be interesting to see is: who do they bring in to conduct the independent investigation? And what are the terms of that investigation?

I'd be very surprised if many of the staff who excited adverse comment or were (relatively) excoriated in the ET's judgment would be willing to cooperate with a 'major independent review' of the OU's 'internal working environment'.

I don't know how far the OU would be willing to go to strongly advise them to participate in the review. And what barriers the UCU might erect to prevent participation.

Institutional apologies tend towards non-apologies though. They’re quite defensively worded for the most part.

What will be interesting to see is: who do they bring in to conduct the independent investigation? And what are the terms of that investigation?

The answer to those questions will give quite a lot of insight into how genuine the OU is about learning from the tribunal verdict.

In the context of the rest of the sentence though, this actually sounds like condemnation of the people within the institution acting against the GCRN. The judgement makes it clear that they did not treat Jo Phoenix with respect and civility and felt entitled to treat her poorly on the basis they strongly disagreed.

Continuing:

”The judgment made for difficult reading for all of us.”

So, it wasn’t the evidence that was hard to hear, we knew all that (and perhaps thought it was an acceptable way to behave?) but reading that the independent tribunal members thought it was unacceptable was difficult.

Perhaps we were not right, then. That is difficult to think.

“ We apologise unreservedly to Professor Phoenix for the hurt and distress this has caused.”

This reminds me of classic non-apologies, ie I’m sorry that you feel like that, not I’m sorry that my actions were wrong.

Agree with @ZebediahTwine He starts with an unreserved apology but his final words are “however profoundly we may disagree”.

It needs someone with far better skills and than I have to take this statement apart, but it’s not saying all it should. It’s too vague and carefully written, and fully mindful of legal considerations I imagine.

Just the first paragraph:

”The judgment made for difficult reading for all of us.”

Why? It didn’t change what had happened and what we had or hadn’t done about it. It just meant that it’s become more widely known, and criticised.

“In several areas we fell very short.”
Name them, then. What did you fail to do?

“ We apologise unreservedly to Professor Phoenix for the hurt and distress this has caused.”

We apologise for the hurt, but still not for our actions and inactions.