Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 7

[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.

The clerk will ask you (in a private remote room) to put your camera on to verify, this involves looking at you, but no ID is needed. You may turn off your camera after this pointless and unnecessary process.

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
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
KS - Kevin Shakesheff. PVC for Research and Innovation
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language
CT - Cath Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager

Witness for JP:

SE - Professor Sarah Earle, Head of the HWSRA

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far - https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Prof Jo Phoenix Witness Statement (scroll to bottom of page and download)

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/phoenix-v-open-university?sd=pf

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

Thread 3 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917480-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Thread 4 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4918479-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-4

Thread 5 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919223-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-5

Thread 6 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4921308-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-6

I'm sure all the Stonewashed universities did.

So JP was being bullied on a much wider scale. Shocking!

@DirtyDuchess I saw that but thought it was an old tweet.

It’s interesting timing, I wonder if having watched or followed the tribunal they have realised it is not a neutral act.

I can't work out when it was removed from their website. If I was a betting woman, I'd say within the last 2 weeks!

Yes, Jo”s grievance took a long time but part of her grievance was against the 300+ signatories to the open letter. The OU decided to interview 22 people. That’s 22 interviews to timetable with the investigators, note takers, person being interviewed and their TU rep taking into account holidays, business and personal commitments, sick absence etc. It was a mammoth job and, based on the witnesses, like herding cats.

That's a reasonable explanation for it taking a long time to get to the end of the process. But not for the time wasted at the start - choosing the panel, contacting JP to get her statement etc.

I was doing a bit of googling about the OU open letter, and there's a page on the website/blog of 'GenderGP' dated 29/6/21 that claims the open letter attracted 'tens of thousands' of signatures from around the country. Quite the pile-on.

There's still a link for OU students to sign it. And this message:

'If you are a trans student or member of staff at a university and have an experience you would like to share, you can reach us on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. Even if it’s not related to the Gender Critical Research Network.'

https://www.gendergp.com/open-university-letter-condemns-gender-critical-research-network/

I hope JP has had at least some sense of justice being done by the OU witnesses giving evidence and in the end I think having 18 worked well for Jo because it showed that it was very much institutional level bullying and attempted coercion (to not research into the importance of sex not just gender) with extremely weak attempts by some to show piss poor to non-existent levels of balance.

Clearly the OU, given the rest of the University sector is captured, thought allowing the GCRN to exist at all would be some kind of mitigation. Despite the fact had it not consisted of such remarkable individuals it would certainly have been bullied out of existence.

It is very clear that of all the witnesses only one seemed to be professional and impartial, the very last witness who was dealing with JP's grievance. Everyone else from management down were either bullies, enforcers or appeasers.

It was like institutional coercive control - the way the mildest words were twisted and claimed to mean 'hate' and to make unspecified people feel 'unsafe'. And no, those in management don't get a pass because they didn't make those claims, by treating them the way they did, as potentially legitimate and not groundless and wrong, they colluded in the bullying and attempted control.

Whilst Jo P is clearly a remarkable woman, the impact of the bullying and attempted coercive control must have been profound and to hear it laid out so clearly, for it to be so clear that it was all co-ordinated bullying, I hope has given her some sense of closure.

Even to someone as sure of herself as Jo P appears to me - to have the wherewithal to bring this case in the first place you must believe you're right, many victims of coercive control would not have that - I hope it is good for her to see that yes, they were wrong, they were deliberately twisting everything she said and did. They were bullying her.

She is such an enormous shero for bringing this case. Most women in workplaces who have been treated like this for stating the fact that sex is real and that it matters will not have the resilience and fortitude to bring a case they may end up victim to the coercive control and believing the lies told, losing their grip on reality. Many are forced to chant 2+2=5 or lose their jobs. Many are trying to quietly resist and keep our sanity or quietly quit and get another job (not rocking the boat because we need a reference) when the coercive control gets too much to bear.

Thank you Jo. (off to do some more gardening)

I might have missed this, but did the OU investigators ever seek to establish who wrote the open letter? Did the investigators seek to establish who took the lead, who was 'in charge', who came up with the idea, who wrote the first draft? As an investigator, I'd be very curious about that.

It took a lot of Ben Cooper's time with witnesses to extract the barest of information about the construction of this letter.

I think you'd lose that bet.

A prod of the web archive shows it first on 18 June 2021, still there on 22 June, but gone by 5 July.

I think another really clear thing that has come out of watching these OU 'academics' for me is that they don't really care about trans people.

Trans people still have to exist in reality, denying biology does them no favours. Telling them people saying words which aren't in any way hateful = hate and genocide is deliberately trying to ruin their mental health.

We've seen how detransitioners are discarded and treated appallingly. I suspect even those who remain trans but have horrendous long term complications will be cast aside because these OU zealots only use those who can make their position more powerful.

I suspect as more and more children and young people who've been pushed down the medical route have problems and really want to de-transition more will remain 'trans' in order to try and retain access to support and healthcare. But they'll be subject to coercive control to not speak of the problems they're experiencing of course.

It's quite convenient to set up someone using the wrong words or doing the wrong research as an evil bigot to be attacked to distract from the real problems trans people face. Many of which are being created by the very people claiming to represent them.

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn from my experience large organisations like the OU always take longer from start to finish. In this case they also had the working group who had to be consulted and trying to find appropriate panel members.

Based on the evidence I have heard (not seen the bundle) and my experience I do not believe the OU were discriminatory in the time taken to investigate Jo’s grievance.

Not taking down the open letter whilst they investigated = highly likely to be discriminatory for continuing to create a hostile work environment.

Not continuing with the grievance when Jo resigned = breach of policy, ACAS guidelines and highly likely to be discriminatory.

@AutumnCrow I got the impression the OU witnesses did a very good impression of the 3 wise monkey’s. I didn’t see anything, I didn’t hear anything, I didn’t say anything.

Translated as can’t remember who drafted it, didn’t mean I really wanted the OU to do what the letter asked, I only signed it to support T & NB staff & students.

As I have said previously one witness said I wasn’t under oath so they viewed the ET as requiring them to either not remember or tell the truth.

Wow that is interesting- the LSE letter is even worse than the OU one!

Can JP move on to the LSE now? That is if she’s got the wherewithal for another battle.

I definitely think a lot of public Sector and Universities HR professionals will be looking closely at the judgement and putting papers to their Boards following this case.

Lest we forget.

The content's quite defamatory, isn't it? As well as inflammatory, I'm not surprised it's not on the website any more.

I wonder when they took it down? Two weeks and yeah fine someone got over-excited and then got reined in. Two years, not so forgivable.

The Gender Critical Research Network is an explicitly anti-intellectual attack on Gender Studies, trans, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people, and inclusive, intersectional feminist politics.

I'm cringing inside out reading that LSE letter. They've got it the wrong way round! How does anyone even pretend to believe that being critical of gender means attacking GNC people?!

As explicitly stated on the TRA thread, believing TWAW requires a belief that personality traits are directly linked to one's sex for nearly every human ever except trans ones. Conforming to gender or not actually forms the definition of having gender dysphoria - they are the ones whose labels' existence hinge upon gender stereotypes.

Seems to have been up for less than 3 weeks.

i can’t get into it has it been removed?

Not at work today and will have to find something else interesting to do. The last few days have been very diverting.

The Internet never forgets but in that case I'll forgive.

Though "anti-intellectual" is a bit rich!

It has been removed @Tinysoxxx

hope there is a screenshot somewhere

I have followed the tribunal proceedings for the past few weeks with a sense of disbelief, particularly at the duplicitous as well as disingenuous (which I understand now is also the legal way of stating ‘you fucking liar’) answers by the OU witnesses. I have felt a (very small) sense of being bullied and harassed by their answers - but what JP went through is heartbreaking.

I definitely stand by Jo and am happy I’ve learnt to garden.

I really don’t understand the OUs defence here? They seem to admit what happened was wrong on reflection - but it’s all a bit too nuanced for non-academic brains? Also we don’t mean the words we use you - you just don’t understand (hope that goes down well with the judge!).

I’m planning to attend on Friday as I note you can attend in person as want to hear OU counsel set out their case here (as I’m buggered if can see one regarding the bullying and harassment?).

Tiny, if you go back to DirtyDuchess's post at 07.34 this morning, and go to the end of the post, you'll see an archive link. Click that.

An archive like this, on an archive website, is a digital copy of a webpage; and can be very useful in acting as a 'receipt' for when things just 'disappear' and the authors try to act like they never existed.