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

Thanks so much @ickky and all who have been contributing to the thread for the rest of us. May your batteries be long life and never go flat!

Great to hear that Jo refused to be crushed, an inspiration to us all.

Thanks for the thread.

Jo, I don't know you but I have huge respect and admiration for you. You have an army of invisible women behind you, stay strong.

I am very much looking forward to Ben's evisceration cross examination of the 18 witnesses.

Could we form a cheerleading group called "Ben's Wrens?"

I love Ben’s Wrens. It’s a little bit Dumbledore’s Army, a little bit Navy Wrens who performed thankless, critical roles that endangered them.

Although I have to admit I mostly think of us as witches.

My Granny was a nurse in WWI, my mum a nurse in WWII. They're both dead now but I can't imagine either of them having any truck with the idea a man could become a woman.

I'd hope that WReNs would be equally as cynical and wouldn't object to us co-opting their name.

Brens for short? 😊

Jo.

Chirp.

(Off topic, but army nurses? My grandmother was in the Queen Alexandria's in WWII.)

I love Ben's wrens

Thanks to everyone giving such a great running commentary and insightful comments along the way it's so helpful to be able to catch up and see what was happening even though I wasn't able to watch it live atm.

I’ve been pondering again on the line of the judges questions to Jo. The sinking feeling I got right at the start when she asked for everyone’s pronouns has returned. Her questions were all about Jo’s GC beliefs, when did they manifest etc.

If it is the case that the judge does hold personal GI beliefs, it seems that the case really will hinge even more on Forstater# in showing that Jo was discriminated against due to her legally held beliefs, rather than showing the discrimination was due to many OU staff losing the plot on what constitutes legitimate academic research. Ie the case will rest on a point of law and will not be a wider hearing on the impact of GI in academia. I’m still hoping we learn something from the questioning of OU witnesses but I’ve reigned in my expectations.

I would still love to see the question asked in a court of law on why are people who subscribe to GI so against sunlight on their position in the form of rigorous studies - whether academic, clinical trial etc. Why does this elicit such a visceral negative reaction? Regulars on this board all know why but I would love to have someone have to answer this question under oath.

#can we ever show enough gratitude to Maya?

I did wonder if the judge was looking for the pivotal point to determine if the case was out of time.

I think that is why BC? did the confirmation about peak trans and confirming the definition/understanding by going to a tweet. It established a date for timing but also when Jo realised exactly what was going on.

Just caught up with the whole week's hearings. Wow, that was brutal! I hope Jo has a wonderful, relaxing weekend, she deserves it

I have found it very hard to follow from Tribunal tweets and this thread alone. I wonder if Jo would consider putting her statement into the public domain, as Allison did. I think that the OU barristers behaviour has been incredibly hostile, verging on abusive. I have had similar courtroom experiences, as part of my career, and it is so ghastly. You are criticised and have your credibility destroyed for behaving normally, we are all inconsistent, we aren’t robots. We all tailor our words to our audience. Sometimes we say things we shouldn’t.
I also tried very hard to seem in control , calm and professional at work, when our management changed and created such a hostile environment that of the 3 people, including me, in a team of 15 who developed serious mental health issues, 2 retired prematurely and another died by suicide. This stuff matters. For this barrister to perform her incredulity that these events would profoundly affect someone is so disingenuous. I hope Jo is being proper spoiled today.

@Zebracat Jo's witness statement was a really hard read. She is very open in it about an incredibly tough young life and also the horrible way she was treated at the OU. I imagine her ptsd would be too damaged by publishing it more widely.

It would be good for people to be able to read about how she was treated by her colleagues but it may just be too hard for her to share.

thanks, I hadn’t considered that aspect.

@Chrysanthemum5 thanks. I wouldn’t want to be prurient, and of course I respect her right to privacy. I could just do with key facts and a timeline..

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest you were wrong for wanting to see it - just explain why it may not be publishable.

We aren't allowed to link to certain things but if you look at Jo's site where she asks for gardening help there are examples of what happened at the OU which may help

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn

Not QA's, regular SRN/SEN both at the same Royal Infirmary but 20 ish years apart.

Oddly enough, I went through a phase of wanting to be a QA in my teens after a career talk at school. I quite fancied the cape and headdress. My mum put me off as she'd hated her time nursing (she was 18 and it was nursing or munitions).

The mess dress is rather splendid too, but the most expensive women's mess dress in the army (or was - they might have relaxed the rules these days).

I can’t speak for the VC of the OU but Reading’s VC is a good egg and a defender of academic freedoms/freedom of speech.

I like Ben’s Wrens! I can’t imagine anyone I’d want more as my barrister.

I can't begin to imagine how dreadful the last week has been for Jo.

I understand that the defence barrister has a job to do, but goodness!

It must be hard for these people to switch off at the weekend.

Jo Bartosch in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-pronoun-ritual/

Do we have a start time for today?

Jo, if you are reading this, I remain astounded by the strength and eloquence you demonstrated last week. Truly admirable amidst such challenging and triggering questioning.

Jo Bartosch gets it wrong, as Sex Matters did, in calling the judge Lady Justice Young.

There may well be such a judge but it isn't the one presiding over Jo P's employment tribunal, whose surname is also Young.