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

Ah the old 'I didn't ask questions, I just relied on what I was told' even though IF's role was to make sure policies were properly followed

Any debate, no matter how respectful or sensitive is literal violence.

NO DEBATE and they mean it.

Look at the select committee and the MP (who birthed a child) who didn't know if she was a woman as she had never had her chromosomes tested. Leaped up and interrupted the speaker to say that this debate was harmful, before it had even started.

DD is the person I really want to see BC examining in forensic detail.

They already do. They know that occupying buildings and threatening people has successfully stopped events at Edinburgh. All they have to do is raise the issue that people may be unsafe and it gives universities an excuse to cancel

as most of it looks made up it's an original contribution to knowledge.

That sentence works if you put a somewhat sarcastic spin on the word 'original'. Otherwise it is no contribution to knowledge at all.

@ickky I wonder what the Judge thought about her Judge's manual after listening to the podcast, when she realised that SW had input into it?
SW who were found to apply the law as they thought it should be, and not what it actually was.

After the Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey ETs, it's clear that all these ETs follow the same pattern, namely the witnesses for the employer go in all cocky, and then BC destroys them through a series of polite questions. Has there been a witness yet on the TRA side in any of these ETs who has given a convincing, coherent account of why the claimant is transphobic or explained how the claimant has caused harm?

Are we going to have to wait patiently as Ben makes mincemeat of all 17 remaining witnesses, or do you think the OU will give up after the first half dozen?

I'm wondering why the OU put this witness up? They must have known what he would say - he's not going to take the blame for things he didn't do eg he will be clear that he wouldn't have cancelled the conference and he has to rely on explanations provided by others

@LarkLane Yes this came up at the Allison Bailey tribunal and I think one member of stonewall helpfully came out and said "yes that is what we want the law to be" (paraphrased)

We don't know the discussions that have gone on behind the scenes. He seems to just be professional and reasonable to us (and the rest of the world paying attention) however given the climate described by JP I think we have to bear in mind what he is currently doing may be extremely brave. Being honest may be a brave act in a particular environment (where the Umbridges rule...).

I suspect this might be true particularly when compared to PB's testimony previously. There is no way PB would consider this reasonable and fact based answering of questions to be anything short of transphobia.

I agree he seems reasonable and I think he's being brave - but that's my point, he's not helping the OU case so why put him up as a witness?

The overwhelming impression I got from IF's statement was he has a 'I'll listen to everyone but it's all very tricky and I can't control what people do' type attitude.
I've heard nothing from him in the witness box which has altered that.

I think his position as Executive Dean means he had to be called. I wonder how he came to be called by the OU rather than by Jo though. Maybe the OU called him because otherwise Jo would have done, and it would have been deeply embarrassing to have such a senior OU person called against the OU case?

Re the Bench Book, I think it was revised and somewhat improved, after the version that was discussed in the podcast? I agree to wondering what the Judge thought about that part of the podcast.

He’s here to run up costs. And show not most people at the OU didn’t care about GC/GI politics/conflicts. And to generally question Jo’s state of mind/resilience at the time.

Basically he’s there to look a bit bewildered by how they got to a tribunal, to look like the reasonable face of OU and to poke a few holes in Jo.

Ah yes that makes sense

I notice that there is 33 in the remote room now and nothing has crashed!

I think if the OU hadn't put him up it would leave a very obvious looking hole in their witness list. He's an important witness and they know BC would be all over it if he wasn't there. They're hoping his evidence and reasonable demeanor will on balance help their case. And it also helps counter the impression of batshittery from other OU witnesses.

If only I was able to wind the clock back and live my life again. All the stuff you don't learn until it's too late. Like, if you want an academic career you create a new area of study, make a load of stuff up, publish loads of articles etc that no one understands, sit back and wait to become famous and fought over.

I wonder if the OU strategy here is to blame more junior staff and present management as doing their best in a difficult situation. They’ve tried to paint JP as a troublemaker and seem to be allowing the TRA staff to incriminate themselves. So it becomes a situation of colleagues falling out (trying to say there was blame on both sides) not institutional failure to protect staff from harassment.

Ben - no one said stop it 😂

Yes, it is interesting. I know a few of us complained and I was surprised to get a link through yesterday lunchtime. So maybe the complaints were somewhat effective.

@VWdieselnightmare my DH would absolutely agree with you.

I remember looking at posters at a conference and thinking either 'but you've done nothing ' or 'but we've been doing that for years'. Total eye opener.

@chilling19 Maybe I should add the deets about how to watch again.

Agree with CC above.

I think the OU have him there also because he is A MAN OF AUTHORITY, rising above all this to uphold good old fashioned academia.

He is the OU neither pro trans nor GC witness. There he stands before the Panel holding up the VC's pronouncement as often as he can, like Chamberlain waving a bit of paper saying Peace For Our Time.

It was that GC woman wot broke the peace Judge.

Yes, but the overriding impression to me is of someone fairly gutless in a senior position hoping that the law won't apply to them if they pretend it doesn't.

Also, adults who can't say 'no' to toddler tantrums.