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

😂😂😂Got it.

I think the fella in the title roll of I, Daniel Blake (Dave Johns) looks like him without his beard.

Got a glance of Prof Fribbance as he passed in front of the camera on the break - yes younger than he sounds, so you need to imagine Jim Broadbent as he played Bridget Jones' dad in the first film. Got the build, walk and voice though.

Break till 11.45

Do we think IF is now considering the total disconnect from reality and commonly held meanings of words that PB exhibited to be a more and more attractive option?😂

BC hasn't gone down this route - as not strictly relevant to JP's case I suppose - but the fact there is ONLY one GCRN in the whole of UK academia when two biological sexes is an established fact in mammals including humans and has been for millions of years (and it of course matters in many circumstances for all mammals, including humans) is not quite the wonderful endorsement of OU that IF thinks it is. The fact it's the only one shows UK academia is hostile in general to these views and that there has been very successful discrimination elsewhere IMO. It's almost like the OU line is 'well yes, we discriminated but we did it slightly less badly than everywhere else' and expecting a pat on the back.

The very strong impression I'm getting is that it took rather remarkable people - hats off to Jo - to set it up and not fold in the face of harassment.

I know several academics who are quietly GC. They are scared for their jobs if they push back even mildly as have seen the horrendous bullying of people making even the slightest mildest challenge to GI.

I think IF is like every senior leader in universities - they get to that point by always doing what is best for them. They talk a lot about being collegial but actually that's only as it applies to others doing the work or taking the flak.

UK academia is so out of step on this issue with the opinions of the majority of humans worldwide and the abundance of scientific evidence it's almost making me wonder if it's at all fit for purpose. If a very common sense, scientific fact that is easily measurable and observable can be denied across the board, where else are academics denying and distorting reality?

It's been said many times on here accusations are admissions. The fact is that nothing the GCRN has done actually threatens trans people's existence - the same can't be said for those pushing a view that men can be women and it's fine to house them in women's jails. There are many women who have suffered real harm and sexual assault as a result of that view becoming policy. The former prisoner who spoke at LWS about how she had a coil fitted as she was so scared of rape spoke volumes.

TT commentary from this morning

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1712018554101358954.html

Thanks @ickky you are truly the Ben Cooper of Mumsnet thread management 😀

Back in the room.

Oops, some chap who had failed to mute his mic on joining was broadcasting his views on Hamas there.

Can't hear OU counsel.

UK academia is so out of step on this issue with the opinions of the majority of humans worldwide and the abundance of scientific evidence it's almost making me wonder if it's at all fit for purpose.

For a bunch that promotes zemiology and stakes a claim to be key opinion leaders in this area, they seem oblivious to the inevitable harm of portraying not only the OU but wider UK academia in this intolerant, wilfully ignorant light.

IF agrees actions of other people [emphasised] acting within their own FoS caused difficulties to the GCRN.

But it wasn’t - apparently - acceptable for the GCRN to “cause difficulties” (ie say things that people didn’t like and hurt their special feelings) to other people? Does he not see the inconsistencies?

I wonder if ironically OU has ended up in the dock (rather than another uni) because they did a little bit of allowing and protecting gender critical researchers, but didn't follow through properly. There were a few very brave staff in one place & they felt the environment might support a gc network. Perhaps at other unis the atmosphere has prevented even the beginnings of a gender critical network, or academics finding each other, or daring to speak out at all. Like the discrimination and hostility is so all encompassing that they dont even get to the point where there is a gc research network to boycott.

Other academics who speak out seem more isolated. Kathleen stock was on her own at sussex and i'm sure if she had sued for constructive dismissal she would have won. No tribunal would expect anyone to continue going to work where people are putting up posters demanding you be sacked.

I hope ou & other unis start to think through how they got here, and how they can get out of it.

BC going in with an analogy of an islamic research group and people objecting to it saying that they were fundamentalists and anti-democratic.

IF said - what if they were researching ways of executing gay people.

!?

BC- let's take a view for example that Islam is incompatible with democracy. You wd have no trouble recognising that dissaffiliating a Muslim research group would be over the line, wouldn't you?
IF - there are shades of gray. What if the Muslim group were talking about gay people?

Black and white! HOUSE!!

IF - the reason I added the extra ingredient was to draw the analogy of people feeling their existence was threatened by the group.

Was the GC network researching the execution of trans people? I am not sure his analogy works...

A rogue, but an honest rogue

But they had already established (regardless of what the GI's thought) there was NO evidence of material harm by the GC network.

BC: do you really think that someone who was afraid because of the vitriolic response to the GCRN that the OU would not protect them would put their head above the parapet?

IF: that's an interesting q which I hadn't considered before [!]

(meaning, he realised he couldn't possibly claim that a potential GCRN member would be reassured by the university's statement unbacked up by real defence, so he said he hadn't thought about it and wasn't sure)