Update from Jo Phoenix

[Imnobody4]

Sorry can't find the previous thread. I thought someone might like to attend. 18 witnesses!! Bet that's just a tactic to intimidate.

https://twitter.com/JoPhoenix1/status/1692558010323702045?t=O8s-xIF3iu564FVwyaYEhg&s=19

NEWSFLASH

45 days to go.

I received news this week that the venue for my hearing has changed. It is now at Watford Tribunal Centre, 2nd floor, Radius House, 51 Clarendon Road, Watford. It will be in an open court (i.e. members of the public are allowed to attend). The dates remain the same.

The case starts on 2nd October with reading and preliminary issues. Evidence-giving starts on 3rd October. At present, I still do not know the exact number of witnesses the OU is calling. In the preliminary case hearing, the OU's representative claimed that they would like to call 18. We are scheduled to exchange witness statements at the end of next week (25th August) and it is then that I will know if all of those 18 witnesses are, indeed, being called to give evidence.

From all the weaselling on the witness stand they do know they were in the wrong otherwise they'd have been proud to own their behaviour.

I don’t think they ever expected to be on any kind of witness stand. Must have been a shock to the system.

Should have been a total 'are we the baddies?' moment. I'd love to know what they're saying now to each other. Are they retconning it so that Jo and the judge are in the wrong? And they said what they said on the stand because..... transphobia (which means never having to say you're sorry).

Alas, we may never know. I don’t think I can recall any sincere apologies from non-trans academic TRAs for the errors of their ways.

After the way they behaved towards Jo and their behaviour on the Witness Stand my sympathy for them for being featured in the Daily Mail is nil.

These academics haven't been tried by media though. Their employer has been tried by employment tribunal and the DM is engaging in public interest reporting of a recently-concluded legal case.

I had a read of the DM piece - honestly it’s a pretty tame reporting of the tribunal and the judgement. The judgement is public record, these all put their names out there already by signing an open letter. Yes, the DM has found their (presumably publicly posted) pictures and published them, but it’s certainly not a character assassination. I’m sure they do feel victimised but I certainly don’t think they have been.

This is my take on it too. The Mail haven't gone digging up dirt here, they are reporting on a court case, the evidence submitted & the judgement of that court case.

Perhaps the daily mail test should be expanded to "would I want to have to defend this in a court of law and then have it all reported in the Mail?"

I did attend the hearing when those named above gave evidence. I don’t think these self-righteous OU witnesses realised quite how badly they actually came across. It is there to see in the judgement though.

The most disdainful of the OU witnesses in court (imo) was Keogh (he was dismissive of the Forstater judgement!). I thought Downes came across as pathetic - as I think the judgement, albeit witheringly, reflects. The arrogance of Bowes-Catton and Williams I found quite shocking. But Drake - I thought she was a vile individual who clearly isn’t as clever as she thinks she is. Westmarland seemed to me to be not just dishonest (as highlighted by the judgement) but also a coward - but all of them appeared in thrall to Drake.

Unfortunately I don’t think any of them have the ability to genuinely reflect on the judgement and see themselves as clearly as the independent tribunal did. But the ET judge knew that and set this out in paragraph 22!

I’m so pleased Jo won so emphatically but also sorry she had to work with such a bunch of bullies too weak to face any reasoned academic arguments! Jock Young is no doubt spinning (in support of Jo!).

They're like a bunch of playground bullies out to target someone who they know is cleverer than they are and who they dislike for this reason; but the shocking and unacceptable thing is they're paid for by the government and by student fees.

Above all the way they behaved was so outrageously unprofessional and would not be allowed in most (much less prestigious) workplaces. Really they should lose their jobs or at least have some kind of sanction, but no doubt they won't.

I did attend the hearing when those named above gave evidence. I don’t think these self-righteous OU witnesses realised quite how badly they actually came across. It is there to see in the judgement though.

I wonder if for those academics, the lack of a video record is both a blessing and a curse.

Drake and Bowes-Catton have authorial claims to glory for this, of course, in which they detailed their tactics for contributing to the resignation of a previous VC of the OU:

In discussing the events leading up to the resignation of the former Open University Vice Chancellor in April 2018, we focus on the enactment of a form of resistance against proposals for the university through a WhatsApp group, enabling rapid information exchange, discussion of tactics and concrete planning for action. We suggest our group – ‘the Hive’ – was unusual because, first, it countered the politically quiescent trend in academia to comply (at least outwardly) with neoliberalisation, and/or only to write about it, as opposed to mounting challenges.

Bowes-Catton, H., Brewis, J., Clarke, C., Drake, D. H., Gilmour, A., & Penn, A. (2020). Talkin’ ’bout a revolution? From quiescence to resistance in the contemporary university. Management Learning, 51(4), 378-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507620925633

Please someone suggest to the Mr. Bates TV producers they make this into a programme/ mini series.

Jo Phoenix vs the Open University.

Will the OU care about being in the DM?

Oh yes.

I was an OU employee. OU students are not the captured teen cohort. They are politically diverse, older, often with kids. Many of them will read the DM. Their potential students will read the DM. Those academics might scoff at the DM but marketing and recruitment won't be.

Jut a thought: given the detail laid out in this in this judgement, would it be possible for Jo Phoenix to pursue an individual action for defamation against a particular individual or individuals? The tribunal judge has really laid the ground work here for at least obtaining apologies-via-settlement for some atrocious behaviour. The 'racist uncle' comment particularly stands out for me. Is that not defamatory?

It's one thing for Tim Blackman to apologise on behalf of the OU. I'm just wondering what legal remedies might exist for holding the individuals to account, given the detailed, excoriating judgement naming names and describing behaviours and comments.

Bloody brilliant! Many congratulations!

I did an OU module a few years ago and TBH the impression I had at every stage was that the course itself and all my interactions with the organisation were structured in accordance with the requirements of a money-making business, not with any genuine concern for intellectual activity (though of course most of the tutors themselves did try and teach with integrity).
So I am sure that the senior decision makers will regard the primary significance of this reputational disaster to be commercial. Perhaps it was those same commercial concerns that caused them to fail so utterly in their responsibility to provide an intellectually responsible learning environment, in which thought and evidence takes priority over fashionable ideology.

I counted four THE articles about this verdict. Hopefully, VCs and their legal teams are paying attention.

I did attend the hearing when those named above gave evidence. I don’t think these self-righteous OU witnesses realised quite how badly they actually came across. It is there to see in the judgement though.

I attended too (after quite the wrangle with the ET office) and was also struck by how dismissive the witnesses I saw were. I should imagine they still can’t understand why they were there in the first place (Right Side Of History and all that) or why the ET has ruled as it has. I can quite imagine the echo chamber.

@SidewaysOtter I've lost track, was that the tribunal that had the really grumpy usher dealing with the online people?

Yes, and a limit of 50 people online. I ended up submitting a complaint but I did get given access in the end as there were some people not using their login.

Whilst I agree with pp that being publicly shamed by the daily mail is a terrible thing I can't help but think it's exactly what these bullies deserve and it's entirely self inflicted. Did they show any care for prof Phoenix and her mental health and welfare? Did they make their harassment of her public in such a way as to encourage/ manufacture a social media pile on? Did they publicly bully a woman out of her job? I'll save my empathy and understanding for people who actually deserve it. As for this bunch of pathetic, abusive, spiteful, "right side of history" footsoldiers for the patriarchy? To quote the awesome GG, I Don't care.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

The is an excellent article about the women who said 'no' and who, despite the cost to them, continued to say 'no'

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-cost-of-dissent/

Although, to be fair, some of them just said 'hang on', or 'yes, but', or said nothing but didn't drink the trans kool aid when all their colleagues were getting high on it. Regardless, amazing and brave women, all of them.

I always thought that true courage was carrying on despite how frightened or alone you might feel.

The universal rule of
Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.

They were proud of their behaviour and will continue to defend their actions I’m sure.

Much kudos to prof Phoenix, once more. She’s a fucking legend!!