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

It's a Facebook group for OU feminists.

On the question of why did OU call IF. I have picked up that if a witness supplies a written statement then he/she can be cross examined. It could be that his written evidence forms an important link in the OU's claim about what happened, and so they decided to use him rather than not. As others said it might look suspicious - like the absence of one key player in the forstater case.

I just did this and they said they have no more access links to give cos they're all used up. Bit shit in this day and age.

I would ring and ask them again. Capacity at Allison Baileys tribunal was over 200 observers. It is the same software and the .gov.uk link they give you is the same, so unless something drastic happened, they have room.

Not everyone observes everyday and they initially said it would first come, first served. I would also mention Open Justice and say how this does not comply.

GCITC
Thanks. So I guess BC is showing how the general environment within academic feminism at OU was hostile to Jo's beliefs. Especially so if it was in any way official, or something that lots of colleagues belonged to.

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.

Yes, this. Shrugs, holds up hands and says 'All these difficult people, what's a reasonable man to do with the feminists and the gender people, they're all as bad as each other...' Somehow women are supposed to be resilient and calm and stoical and take the tantrums and the kicking, while the gender folk get strokes and soothing for being ultra sensitive, upset and shouty. It's asking GC people to be mum and dad and ignore the noisy kids, isn't it?

women are supposed to be resilient and calm and stoical and take the tantrums and the kicking, while the gender folk get strokes and soothing for being ultra sensitive

See upthread exchange about rejection (sensitivity) dysphoria and the expectation that women would accept the implicit questioning of their experience and competence without adverse reaction. Irrespective of the reputational harm that was implicit in the unnecessary explanations coming from various sources that completely missed the point.

Every break seems to be due just as he reaches a point he wants to stick in the mind and give people time to consider the implications. Quite a skill.

Re the cancellation at Essex. OU not supporting their cancelled academic.

BC: You were trying to make your life easier by not having people kick off
IF: I don't like the way you put that
BC: I'm sure you don't!
IF: I have a really really big job and my time should be spent running the largest faculty of the largest university in the country rather than dealing with this sort of thing.

I’m not sure what running the faculty would include if it doesn’t include ensuring your staff aren’t bullied out.

Wonder if he'd make the same decision if it was a trans academic being frozen out.

@Mmmnotsure great post thanks. The veneer drops.

I missed that bit but gosh, how tedious women having rights and not wanting to be discriminated against. Wouldn't life be so much easier and the big important (manly) stuff be so much easier to do if women just weren't allowed to participate in academia at all, as was the case until relatively recently. It's only about 150 years since the first women could get degrees in the UK, and only 100 years for many universities.

For those asking why IF has been called as a witness for the OU, it appears to be because he was a decision maker.

There were policies in place that IF should have followed/upheld and it appears he didn’t. That means he made a decision not to follow/apply OU policies which meant Jo was discriminated against by OU management.

In HR parlance he is a manager with slopey shoulders I.e. doesn’t want to deal with difficult issues if he can possibly avoid it.

IF is part of the OUs defence they acted reasonably, followed their policies and didn’t discriminate against Jo. 😂

IF: I have a really really big job and my time should be spent running the largest faculty of the largest university in the country rather than dealing with this sort of thing.

Thank goodness that no women have a "really really big job" so it's OK to throw them to the wolves or under buses (whatever the preferred comparison is) despite any HR or legal obligations to the contrary.

I think the judge had to ask IF who exactly was involved in this conversation he's talking about because she was confused by IF's use of Dr Downes 'deadname' which Dr D had at the time under discussion. Confusing indeed.

BC: The executive staff in IF's office realised opposition to JP's views so strong that even a video of her work shouldn't be shown at faculty assembly.
IF: Yes, she was aware there might be a hoo ha or whatever [!] [! - !typist's own]

BC: Video wasn't shown as a result of this
IF: I don't know why it wasn't shown. [I know nuffin' - nuffin to do wiv me guv]

Well this is cheering me up no end!😂

😂

I have a really really big job and my time should be spent running the largest faculty of the largest university in the country rather than dealing with this sort of thing.

Ah - he's one of those. So many senior managers seem to think their role is to have Big Ideas and go around Being Important, rather actually managing anything or dealing with the details of their jobs.

All of this is the beautiful and skilful illustration of IF's own admission in the docs somewhere which BC left hanging last night
' maybe if I was braver I might call this out one day '.

Poor IF, he really doesn't want to do this anymore, much sighing and huffing.

BC: Drake comment - c Reindorf report and academic freedom. No one at OU should do anything but welcome JP's position being vindicated.

IF: I agree. But there's a small number of people who believe that strong expression of GC belief breaches the academic freedom of others.

BC- Reindorf report was surely to be welcomed as endorsement of JP's academic freedom?
IF- my personal belief, yes - but a small number of people didn't agree.

How unremarkable that we all seem to have worked with IF at some point.