Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 8

[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
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language - This witness did not give evidence.

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

Thread 7
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922765-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-7

She's saying it's about balancing - well, yes, that's what GC people are saying.

Where's the balance at OU? They have gender identity champions but no champions for any other students? It's all one way.

Poor JM.

Look at her clients. Wouldn’t you be ransacking the office for something to take the edge off?

😂@WrensAreAllDinosaurs

I think you are all lying to me. JM cannot be serious

@SidewaysOtter has JM expanded on what she means by that at all, because purity is a weird word to use in this context?

JM must have sucked the top off her pencil yesterday trying to think of something to say.

So she's saying that academic freedom covers the behaviours of the people who objected to Jo's views.

No. Academic freedom gives people the right to discuss all things in an academic context, respecting all views. It doesn't give people the right to bully, harrass or abuse.

And academic freedom doesn't remove the responsibility of an employer to protect employees from bullying.

Isn't JM making Jo's case?

And it's Justin again reminding us not to disconnect or he won't let us back in

Justin's still being moody.

Balancing rights? How very right-wing and transphobic. Rights are not a pie, doncha know?

So, we've missed BC's closing? Bollocks to open justice then - that's what we all wanted to listen to! Wahaaa - I have very very very hurty feelz!

I think she is helping it a lot .

Exactly @katmarie I don't see how this is a good argument to make

JM: It's suggested by JP and BC there is a purity attached to JP's case. Element of someone's ac freedom being at expense of someone else's and that can't be right. It's a q of balancing. It's saying it's fos and you can't challenge it.

Ac freedom bolsters protection of right of free speech of academics - inc right to voice concern, raise objections and right to make requests of the institution.

[JM on and on c impt of balancing rights and people's right to fos. I have gone down a rabbit hole. Is she on OU or JP side here?]

JM is word salading here. Jo P wants a debate, she was the one cancelled.

HM repeating the harm to others trope, but to be fair she doesn’t have much to work with.

She's saying it's about balancing...

Should have told that to the OU and their witnesses. Ben did a great job showing how they only cared about one side and how they felt.

How is JM going to spin this out for 90 minutes

JM: q of words and actions. Distinction in law between these. Witnesses have repeatedly been asked by BC to say letter was call to discriminate. Not so. Until you know the motivation you can't know if was discriminatory.

I don't think we have missed BC's statement, I think it will be after lunch.

Indeed.

At this stage, each side's barrister must do their best to make a case for their client, even if they know it is doomed to failure. If you go and read the closing submissions in the Post Office Horizon common issues trial, for example, you will find the Post Office's barrister arguing that the subpostmasters' case had fallen apart in the hearings, when it clearly had not. He would have known that he had no chance of persuading the judge to accept the evidence from Post Office witnesses about what "must have happened" in preference to evidence from many subpostmasters about what actually did happen, but he had to make the attempt.

As an aside, I doubt she will say it but watch out for the phrase, "I am instructed to say". That's barrister speak for, "I know this is so ridiculous it wouldn't fool a five-year-old, but my client insists that I say this".

So the witnesses were allowed to express their views and make requests to shut the network down and it was up to the OU to deal with it

How can she say that the argument is about academic FoS? Of course it is, but her clients were the ones who didn't want to allow it!

My ghast is flabbered.