Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 2

[ickky]

Abbreviations

JP - Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R

OU Departments & Networks:

HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminology
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

OU witnesses

CW - Chris Williams, Senior Lecturer History
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SE - Sarah Earle, Prof of Medical Sociology, Director HWSRA 2016-22
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
CT - Cath Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance

Witness for JP:

SE - Sarah Earle, Professor Modern History Uni of Oxford, Founding member GCRN

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4905118-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-2nd-october-whispers-ben-cooper?page=1

BC is doing a BC style series of closed questions establishing facts from the evidence leading up to a Big Point. Currently point 1 is that the open letter asks the OU to withdraw support and affiliation for the GCRN and witness is trying to wriggle round to say that's not's what it means.

BC tying the witness into knots.

What happened?!

This links to Dr PB's doctoral thesis on sex trafficking (2012), from back when PB knew what a woman was.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9302988.pdf

PB opened the Conclusions chapter with a poem:

They all call you a statue right away.
Right away I call you a woman
Not because the sculptor surrendered you to the marble as a woman and your thighs promise generations of beautiful statues ―a clean harvest of immobility―
But because your hands are tied.
Everywhere I turn I see your hands are always tied.
That's why I call you a woman. I call you a woman because you always end up a captive.

Kiki Dimoula ‘Mark of Recognition’, [‘Σηµείο Αναγνωρίσεως’, Το Λίγο του Κόσµου, 1994]

It sounds very much like they didn't actually read the letter they were signing.... There's an awful lot of BC quoting the "letter said A", and they saying "but it actually meant B"

Does anyone have a link to the open letter?

This is beautiful. The witness cannot answer BC’s question because there is no answer.

It's a particularly interesting mote/beam blind spot for someone who is a proponent of zemiology.

BC: You are getting ahead. I am asking how you can say the letter is not asking the OU to treat this RN differently, when it is explicitly asking "withdraw support and affiliation".
PB: but it says other things too.
BC: But it does say that?
PB yes

Jaysus, this witness is annoying.

BC asked the witness about a hypothetical situation where the University told them that their research network was not welcome because they didn't agree with their beliefs, and asked them if they would consider that to be a hostile environment. Witness unable to answer - I think JM tried to intervene but Judge said that they would like to hear the answer and Witness said they didn't know.

Did the judge just misgender the witness, or is tribunal tweets paraphrasing?

Ok I'm in

It's like trying to get blood from a stone.

BC has spent about 10 minutes simply trying to get PB to agree that the words in point 1 of the open letter are those words.

BC "Is this what point 1 states?"

PB "erm" "well" "not quite" "I didn't read it like that" "what about other parts of the letter" ad nauseum.

BC: Gender critical beliefs are not fundamentally hostile to trans people are they, they are just a different view of sex and gender.
Witness: I disagree.

BC should ask the witness what GC views are...

BC It's not right that gc views are fundamentally harmful to transgender people?

PB I believe that's not correct

BC It's that view of gc feminism that lead to this letter being written?

PB I believe gc feminism indeed is trying to undermine trans people. That's why I signed the letter.

That's not the position she held in her doctoral thesis.

I wonder when PB developed rapid onset career enhancement dysphoria

Glad to hear it @chilling19

It's really quite disturbing to read when someone is forced to account for their ideology.

None of it is logical, rational, fair, balanced.

It's all so one-sided, and because I said so

Witness doesn't agree that GI is the prevailing view of sex and gender matters in academia.

with lots of "you said x but we know you really meant" used to justify the discrimination

It's really quite disturbing to read when someone is forced to account for their ideology.

I bloody love it, and it never bloody happens!

Oh, hi Ben! Patience personified 😂

Sure she said she