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

[RoyalCorgi]

Both Rosa Freedman and Jo Phoenix had invitations to speak at the University of Essex rescinded because of their "transphobic" views.

The university's vice-chancellor has now conducted a review and concluded that the cancellations were wrong.

twitter.com/jophoenix1/status/1394604603300253696

I wonder if Gendercriticalessex or anyone else can answer this - what is it that made Essex commission this review? How come they took that step when other uni's have had similar situations arise and haven't addressed the problem. It seems important to remember that some senior people decided to do this. What was going on there that isn't going on elsewhere?

I don't know, but I can speculate. There was a highly publicized case of anti-semitism at Essex in 2019, which led to a review of anti-semitism in the University. I wonder whether that experience meant that there was a heightened awareness in University management of issues around hate speech and freedom of expression in the University setting. I would also presume that both Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman made formal complaints and may well have indicated a preparedness to take legal action if things weren't dealt with robustly. Maybe (more optimistically and less cynically) we have University leadership committed to freedom of expression

@GenderCriticalEssex

I wonder if Gendercriticalessex or anyone else can answer this - what is it that made Essex commission this review? How come they took that step when other uni's have had similar situations arise and haven't addressed the problem. It seems important to remember that some senior people decided to do this. What was going on there that isn't going on elsewhere?

I don't know, but I can speculate. There was a highly publicized case of anti-semitism at Essex in 2019, which led to a review of anti-semitism in the University. I wonder whether that experience meant that there was a heightened awareness in University management of issues around hate speech and freedom of expression in the University setting. I would also presume that both Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman made formal complaints and may well have indicated a preparedness to take legal action if things weren't dealt with robustly. Maybe (more optimistically and less cynically) we have University leadership committed to freedom of expression

Arse covering to ward off legal action far more likely.

Stonewall gave a quote, at the bottom of this article.

wonkhe.com/blogs/what-can-we-learn-from-essexs-free-speech-cases/

"UPDATE 20th May

After this blog was published, Stonewall (mentioned above) sent me a quote. Liz Ward (She/Her), Director of Programmes at Stonewall said:

We are incredibly proud of our longstanding relationship with the University of Essex through the Stonewall Diversity Champions programme. It’s so important that universities create an environment where LGBTQ+ staff and students feel safe, are treated fairly and can thrive. We provide expert advice to more than 850 organisations who are members of the Diversity Champions programme. Our advice on the Equality Act is based on guidance provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was recently reaffirmed in the High Court.”

This story seems to have come out at a particularly helpful moment in time for me. I shared with the person responsible for diversity and inclusion at my work as we have been Stonewall Champions for a number of years.

As it happens, our membership is due for review and there were already doubts about renewal for the various reasons you might expect given Stonewall's disproportionate lobbying on trans issues. This might swing it.

I said this on another thread:

Stonewall are being disingenuous in their quote .The recent High Court case brought by Ann Sinnott related to a very small section of EHRC guidance in the Code of Practice on use of single sex exceptions. The criticism of Stonewall by the Reindorf Report are much broader and wider.

The full details of the High Court case explained here: legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

"....was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

He decided it was not, for the following reasons:

On the first argument, he agreed that the COP said “should,” not “must.” He pointed out that the guidance extends to just four paragraphs and is intended to be a brief summary not a detailed legal analysis. After “should” comes the disclaimer “However,” followed by an explanation of where exclusion will be reasonable. Although it is not detailed, it is not intended to be an exhaustive guide.
He also agreed that if there are public bodies which have understood a ‘should’ as a ‘must,’ these are capable of challenge by individual service users to individual service providers, whether inclusive or exclusive. We look at this below.
On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.
It may well be that a service needs to be female only, but the variation in presentations of transwomen from someone who is ‘visually indistinguishable’ to someone who has only just announced an intention to transition, and the variation in needs of the service users from a rape crisis centre to a changing room with partitioned cubicles, mean that there cannot be the certainty advanced by the Claimant.
In respect of the third argument, the judge agreed that physical appearance is relevant. This is unfortunate. Someone who is genuinely visually indistinguishable will be unlikely to cause challenge or consternation on accessing a SSS, even if they should choose to do so. Focus on a person’s physical appearance is likely to be experienced as demeaning by both the subject and the person required to make the assessment."

So basically the fight is moved onto individual service users challenging services... which itself isn't helpful

On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.

Eh, first rquirement to show it needs to be single sex. Second challenge, reaffirm it is meant to be single sex so no males!?

The bit about passing it a bit silly. Because, of course, if someone 100% passed, then noone would be any the wiser.

@justicewomen

I said this on another thread:

Stonewall are being disingenuous in their quote .The recent High Court case brought by Ann Sinnott related to a very small section of EHRC guidance in the Code of Practice on use of single sex exceptions. The criticism of Stonewall by the Reindorf Report are much broader and wider.

The full details of the High Court case explained here: legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

"....was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

He decided it was not, for the following reasons:

On the first argument, he agreed that the COP said “should,” not “must.” He pointed out that the guidance extends to just four paragraphs and is intended to be a brief summary not a detailed legal analysis. After “should” comes the disclaimer “However,” followed by an explanation of where exclusion will be reasonable. Although it is not detailed, it is not intended to be an exhaustive guide.
He also agreed that if there are public bodies which have understood a ‘should’ as a ‘must,’ these are capable of challenge by individual service users to individual service providers, whether inclusive or exclusive. We look at this below.
On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.
It may well be that a service needs to be female only, but the variation in presentations of transwomen from someone who is ‘visually indistinguishable’ to someone who has only just announced an intention to transition, and the variation in needs of the service users from a rape crisis centre to a changing room with partitioned cubicles, mean that there cannot be the certainty advanced by the Claimant.
In respect of the third argument, the judge agreed that physical appearance is relevant. This is unfortunate. Someone who is genuinely visually indistinguishable will be unlikely to cause challenge or consternation on accessing a SSS, even if they should choose to do so. Focus on a person’s physical appearance is likely to be experienced as demeaning by both the subject and the person required to make the assessment."

So basically the fight is moved onto individual service users challenging services... which itself isn't helpful

Is the judge only referring to "transwomen" WITH a GRC here?

@HeadIsFucked

On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.

Eh, first rquirement to show it needs to be single sex. Second challenge, reaffirm it is meant to be single sex so no males!?

The bit about passing it a bit silly. Because, of course, if someone 100% passed, then noone would be any the wiser.

Yes, and whose judgment takes primacy?

The young woke receptionist who doesn't think it should matter? Or the vulnerable abused woman service user who can see it's a male as clear as day?

visually indistinguishable?

Why visually? It's common for me to twig by voice first and appearance later. In a loo block, a male voice outside the cubicle is cause for alarm. And it's pretty obvious who is female and who is a transwoman in radio interviews, so I assume it would also be obvious on, say, a rape phoneline.

New article in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ee5c6558-ba45-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=f91db5efd8b390166a576d136a23e3d5

I think that's a very strong article. Thank you for sharing it Igneococcus.

The comments are damning too.

Good that they gave Jo and Rosa the opportunity to comment about it.

It's a flood of comments, there were only two when I first read the article, 82 now.

116 now

Really doesn't pull the punches on Stonewall, does it?

My daughter has Exeter on her list to apply to. I am wondering now if it wouldn’t be a good idea or if most universities have similar problems?

This is about Essex, not Exeter, but there are likely to be similar issues all over the place.

Really doesn't pull the punches on Stonewall, does it?

Not much love for Stonewall at all, in fact the complete opposite people can see them for what they are and what they are doing and they totally disagree with it and don't support it.

There HAS to be a Government and Charity Commission inquiry into Stonewall and their behaviour and influence.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

This is about Essex, not Exeter, but there are likely to be similar issues all over the place.

Thank you, I have read all the pages and read the name wrong every time! Probably as it is on my mind.

Peaepickingporky Is the judge only referring to "transwomen" WITH a GRC here?

No I don't think so. The judge (actually all parties) agreed that trans women with a grc could be excluded lawfully. But for both with & without a grc the judge's view was (from the live tweeting) that services should start from the assumption that they would include trans women into female spaces on the basis they have the pc of gender reassignment, and then to consider exclusion if it's proportionate, rather than to start from the assumption they were excluded on the basis that they are male. He was v clear that parliament intended them to be treated differently to men. But he said individual service providers would have to be sued for the courts to rule on exactly how that should work in different contexts. We have to identify cases to bring to court to build up case law.

Promising report, I hope this has some impact across the sector. I'm sick of universities scrubbing all mention of sex,but banging on about gender identities like their sacrosanct. I complained to Lancaster Uni that their job applications section swapped "sex" for "gender identity or gender expression" when talking about equality. Obviously a Stonewall/Gendered Intelligence substitute. They declined my suggestion to simply add "sex" to the list of protected characteristics. Sick of the disrespect to women.

Thanks for the times share token. Very good article.

What is the basis given for the redactions?

Still makes me angry reading what they were put through, whoever that lecturer was who went after them, they should be disciplined. Totally unacceptable behaviour.

I saw the thread likening Rosa freedman's views to holocaust denial. From what I remember he was saying it was using the fact it's acceptable to prevent holocaust denial being voiced on campus to justify keeping gc views off campus, implying an equivalence. I'm sure it will be screen shot on mumsnet somewhere! He did delete it saying it was an inappropriate comparison (meaning because it had been pointed out that RF was Jewish) but I don't know if he actually apologised. Presumably not. The thing is they really do need to keep comparing us to those kinds of extremists because they want to banish the view point entirely.

A different lecturer at a different uni just issued an apology to a different gc feminist academic for making the same comparison. These people really need to step outside their bubbles where that kind of talk is okayed and encouraged, because when people with more mainstream views (or a legal angle) look at it they see straight away how off it is.

"Expert advice." Aye, right