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

Morning 😀

BC: Do you agree that open letter signed by 300+ colleagues

IF: Not just academics

BC: 300+ staff, saying that you are part of group that's transphobic and causing harm is inherently a v upsetting thing

IF: pause. Possibly.

IF clearly not wanting to commit to how upsetting this would be for Jo

IF - As a senior manager you get used to being called lots of things.

Witnesses are not allowed to talk to anyone while giving evidence - does that also apply to their barrister talking to them? Because IF sounds as if he's realised he needs to stop agreeing with BC

IF - letter didn't name anyone, it was aimed at the GRN group [of 9].

So that makes it OK then.

Morning @chilling19

Yes, especially their council while in purdah.

TTBOMK yes not allowed to talk to counsel while giving evience.

That’s a very interesting point more widely too re the intelligibility and clearness of BC’s line of questioning, and the opaqueness of JM’s. It does seem to me to be all of a piece with the general way of things - that the GI stance is one of obfuscation, of ‘no debate’, of deliberate clouding of meaning (how often have we been frustrated at the likelihood that many people not versed in all this simply don’t understand what ‘transwoman’ and ‘transman’ actually mean?).

Whereas the GC stance is one that probably 99.9% of the world’s population would agree with and would understand immediately. It’s simple to understand because it IS simple. It doesn’t need to be hedged about with endless protests of ‘it’s complicated’.

So other bad things have happened and people didn't make a fuss so why is Jo making a fuss. Is that IF's argument?

IF being very cagey today. Trying to minimise everything.

(Sorry to interject, not able to attend the tribunal unfortunately so I’m very grateful for this thread for insights)

IF was getting fed up by the end of yesterday. He has had a nights sleep.

IF realised the force of BC's silky skills yesterday. He's being very wary today.

I've read through IF's statement now, and as always it seems the case that the people on the other side made MORE of a fuss, so simpler to scapegoat Jo as problematic than confront the toddlers.

'Silky skills' is splendid @CriticalCondition 👏

BC: A letter with 300+ signatures is bound to make GCRN members feel unwelcome in the uni

IF: To an extent

BC: and calling for unlawful discrimination

IF: Yes. I've already agreed that.

I can't take credit for it sadly. It's a term used in lawyers' circles.

BC: open letter is mobbing behaviour encouraging OU to a act against a group of people in a certain way

IF: Wouldn't like to say that is mobbing behaviour

IF perhaps recalling with regret all the things he agreed to with BC yesterday. Bit testy today and truculent.

If that's not what 'mobbing behaviour' is then what is? What's the uni definition?

BC - Dr Downes sent an email asking people to read and sign the open letter, perfect example of mobbing.

BC - Dr Downes retweeted a JP tweet saying Terf. Did you know this is slur?

BC: DD tweet referring to JP and others. DD retweets tweet c OU group calling them terf and transphobic.

IF: I know that a lot of people say terf is a slur