Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

Started on 2nd October at Watford Employment Tribunal (Radius House, 51 Clarendon Rd, Watford WD17 1HP 01923 281750)

You may attend in person or remote viewing has been quite limited but you can request log in details from

Email [email protected]

Header should read

URGENT CURRENT CASE - Public Access Request - J Phoenix - The Open University - 3322700/2021

Ask for access link and pin and please give your name and address in the email as they check when you connect to the tribunal.

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

PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
IF - Prof Ian Fribbance Dean of FASS
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
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

Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

I feel like she said that much like an anthropologist would put 'uncontacted tribe'.

So 3 witnesses for the OU down and it’s clear to me the OU treated jo less favourably than the gender affirmists, due to pressure they were under not to upset the gender affirmists. Not sure what the OU’s tactic is with so many witnesses. Surely BC will just prove the same with them all? Or what key evidence does the OU have to debunk his cross examination so far? Is it good to have so many witnesses?

I agree. I think the number of witnesses the OU have, may backfire on them.
More of the same only aids JP's claim surely?

They need to show that they were dealing with Jo's grievance in a timely manner and she jumped ship and left before it was resolved. Also that they treated her fairly. That bit is definitely not going well for the OU.

There's a constant reference by the witnesses to the GCRN carrying on regardless. The suggestion seems to be that they didn't bow to pressure, as it wasn't shut down, and Jo left before it was sorted. The fact is the GCRN survived because they threw Jo to the wolves and appeased them. She was forced out.

I think DD's evidence next week will be important. I still think they will keep on with the character assassination attempt.

As a Northern working class woman, she can fuck off with that shite (said with a disarming smile).

Probably watched Coronation Street and thought it was a Disappearing World documentary.

she's also the partner of male TRA Edward Lord of the City of London Corporation, who incidentally had to recuse himself from the Kristie Higgs v Farmors School tribunal appeal hearing

Ah yes, Edward Lord, the non-binary senior Freemason who strangely is still allowed to be a Mason despite not identifying as a man, and who in their capacity as Deputy of the City of London ran a hopelessly muddled and compromised survey about toilet provision which showed just how spectacularly useless a badly-constructed and poorly-run survey can be (cf the census).

I have heard people say it was an attempt to drive costs up as high as possible.

Bastards.

Good morning, hopeful for the outcome of today.

Yes, although it's an attempt to run up costs it's sort of a reflection of what happened - a massive pile on of bullying or enablers. It also highlights weaknesses in each witnesses testimony. We've already had PB's testimony which clearly contradicted IF's in some aspects, which I think illustrates the weakness of OU management. PB's evidence for most people would be lying. I realise postmodernism is all about breaking down boundaries, such as the meaning of words, but in the real world that doesn't work and if you say 'no' when the evidence shows 'yes' most people think that's lying (no doubt PB would say this is cis-het linguistic hegemony).

What I think is really interesting about this case - and others - is that they've obviously gone for the full trial and not settled because they think the same tactics they've used up to this point will work in court and yet - win or lose - it's incredibly unflattering and in the very best case scenario shows the utterly lopsided and unfair standards applied to the science-backed position of GC belief vs the unevidenced feelings based Gender ideology, in favour of GI.

However it also shows that they are not applying the same standards - Jo has demonstrated and said she felt bullied and she felt discriminated against. If we're just basing everything on feelings, why doesn't her self ID as discriminated against count but PB's (totally incoherent accusations of 'transphobia' everywhere, unevidenced) do? Ultimately this is what GI results in - some people are the heretics and some are the overlords. It's what the ideology IS.

I have to go and do stuff out in the world, but I'll be back later to catch up. I've agreed with DP we'll both donate again if there's a shortfall or an appeal. The cynical attempt to drive up costs really should be disallowed - that's not access to justice or equality of arms. It's blatant financial discrimination against a former employee who brought a grievance and the ethical misuse of a university's funds IMHO.

Back in my earlier career I was a tutor for the OU. I always went the extra mile because I believed in it and I believed in the students. The course materials were excellent. Yes I was paid, but nothing like enough considering those 'extra miles'. It really hacks me off that the OU has become some sort of parody of itself.

The 'GCRN carrying on regardless' line is what they really think - they REALLY think they've been basically kind to believers in scientific fact because they allowed them this network, where elsewhere it has not been allowed.

This doesn't show they are not discriminating under the law, it possibly does show they've discriminated less than every other university, but they're not on trial in comparison to those other universities.

I think it shows how utterly the Emporer's New Clothes thinking has completely overtaken UK academia - that the OU, whilst behaving in such an unfair way, taking unevidenced accusations of transphobia and bigotry as reasons to treat staff unfairly, thought they were being fair. Taking claims that speaking about the reality of two sexes in mammals was somehow 'harming' trans people seriously. Again, no evidence.

The way they behaved undermines the whole premise that academia is built on and what normal people - the taxpayers who largely fund Universities in one way or another - think Universities do.

I hope it's reported on widely as it's immensely damaging to the whole University sector. I especially hope that a journalist picks up on the idea put forward by the OU here that the way they treated Jo, which by any normal person's interpretation is badly and caving in to toddler tantrums from the other side, particularly well.

They let the science believers have something after all. Everywhere else they're allowed nothing (see also: Laura Favaro).

Hmmn yes AutumnCrow, I'm currently studying with the OU (apparently contributing to their as well as JPs costs!) and have not been impressed with what I'm hearing and seeing. Time to stop I think, and find something else to do with my money.

I just finally finished watching the three part documentary on Evergreen College. Years late, I know.

What Weinstein said at the end, about these ideologies undermining civilisation, seems apposite.

I was one of the people who requested access to observe the tribunal and didn’t get a response. I didn’t follow up once I heard about the 50 person max as I can’t watch it all just bits and bobs.

Imagine my surprise yesterday when an email arrived all the way from Watford with an apology for the delay. So someone has realised the optics on this from an open justice perspective haven’t been great.

On the witness numbers - I think the OU bluffed and lost. They thought they could panic Jo with so many witnesses and so much paperwork to wade through. In the same way as they under estimated the almighty tantrum the TRAs threw they had no idea how many women (and men) felt so strongly on this and how willing we would be to keep sacrificing the odd bottle of wine, or pack of new socks or whatever to keep funding these cases. We were entirely invisible to them. Until we weren’t. And by that point it was too late.

Looking back upthread at Pilgrim Tucker's OU letter. You can see the same tactics. Failure to investigate, threats, delay, browbeating. minimising. Again forcing a woman to a lengthy and expensive tribunal situation to shut her down. The mental toll of it all.

Lots of support for her from gardening enthusiasts everywhere.

WRT the number of OU witnesses one thing to remember is that there will have been a lot of people involved from “management”.

This bumps up the witnesses e.g. who was involved in drafting VC statement, who was involved in the grievance, who were the “managers” of the academics who signed the open letter, who was in Jo’s line management chain?

I am not convinced the OU would put up 18 witnesses just to bump up the costs. As an employer they have a duty of care (which they failed for Jo) and unnecessarily putting employees through the witness process just to bump up the costs seems counterproductive.

A little outing but wth this is a this-thread-only nn: I too was a tutor for the OU many years ago and really enjoyed going the extra mile, even if it did put the payment per hour stupidly low. Later, I was involved with the OU in a couple of more senior capacities, and was much less impressed - weak management that would allow something unfair to happen because it was easy for them, just as we see here. In between a relative did an OU degree and had a great time. I think it's a badly managed organisation which still has some wonderful grass roots. In fairness it's not the only university that meets that description!

@JoIsBraverThanIAm It’s not the only employer that meets your description. This is far more common than people realise.

Morning everyone. I see it is another late start!

Deputy of the City of London ran a hopelessly muddled and compromised survey about toilet provision which showed just how spectacularly useless a badly-constructed and poorly-run survey can be (cf the census).

And allegedly confessed to throwing away many of the unfavourable responses, IIRC

Was he not involved in the debacle about the Hampstead ponds which ended up with men being allowed in all three, so no real Ladies pond any more. I think he threw away a lot of responses to the consultation because they weren't filled in correctly.

Of the demographics that should be good at filling in surveys correctly and accurately giving their opinions, north Londoners would be in there.

Yeah I'm still WFTCHTJ

Morning @ickky !
Given all your hard work, who will play you in the film!?😀We'll be needing shots of earnest supporters diligently rooting away for justice behind the scenes!

Tribunal Tweets also need some suggestions.

Morning all.