OU's review following Phoenix case involves a full-on trans ally

[Abeona]

Professor Dame Nicola Dandridge has been employed to carry out a review of the OU following Prof Jo Phoenix's employment tribunal victory, where the judge made some very damaging findings about the quality and veracity of the OU's long list of witnesses and (and, by implication, their credentials to be academics).
https://ounews.co/around-ou/university-news/professor-dame-nicola-dandridge-to-lead-post-employment-tribunal-review/

Assisting Prof Dame ND will be Smita Jamdar, a specialist in educational institutions, whose TwitterX timeline is full of pronouns, pro-trans statements and a declaration that she's an ally. Maya Forstater has laid it all out on TwitterX.
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1787986378082418819

Is this similar to the question in Holyrood yesterday about why there weren't any trans team members working on the Cass report? No one trans applied but Dr Cass should have rounded someone up just to make it fair.

Either way I'm glad I'm not Prof Dandridge.

Maya is brilliant in those Twitter posts. What's a Terfblocker?

It's software that some people use to block TwiX accounts that express GC views. I seem to remember that Aimee Challenor (Green Party, trans, Reddit, very troubled) was said to have developed it years ago.

By the same logic, if a review was being conducted into institutional racism then they’d ensure they had a member of a white supremacists group assisting? Have I got that right?

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · Today 15:50

By the same logic, if a review was being conducted into institutional racism then they’d ensure they had a member of a white supremacists group assisting?

Yes, I suppose so!

I note that the apology is repeated in the OU statement today:

''Plans for an independent review were announced previously by Professor Tim Blackman, Vice-Chancellor of The Open University, following the employment tribunal ruling. The University unreservedly apologised to Professor Phoenix following the judgment.''

Almut Gadow on X: "The OU has amended its announcement removing any reference to Smita Jamdar. t.co/Hbc93C8Lkc" / X (twitter.com) well well well. The statement appears to have been amended - the original statement said review "will start in early May, is expected to take four months and will be supported by independent legal advice from Ms Smita Jamdar, Partner and Head of Education at Shakespeare Martineau." Now the sentence ends before the "and". (According to this twitter poster. No idea how to verify)

Honestly if we weren't all such nosey bastards so much could be swept under the carpet, unnoticed.

I wonder whether the review team or just the messaging has changed - i.e. will this person still be involved in the review, but not referred to in public communications? Or will the team be changed? (Simply removing the reference to her name with no other acknowledgement would perhaps suggest the former…)

Someone has done an FOI request to clarify the staffing of the review:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/phoenix_review#outgoing-1658778

From a barrister it seems.

Tbf Smita Jamdar is a fairly high profile solicitor within the HE sector - knows her stuff so would have been the obvious first choice had someone not done proper due diligence.

Interesting if the OU have backed away from her - and very good to see that the Terven are out in force checking TwiX and submitting those FOI requests like troopers. Good on you, GC Army

Tbf Smita Jamdar is a fairly high profile solicitor within the HE sector - knows her stuff so would have been the obvious first choice had someone not done proper due diligence.

Given what we learned about the OU at Jo P's tribunal, it seems rather optimistic to imagine that anyone there did any due diligence at all.

So, a review of cardiac services would have to include someone with a heart condition? Would just having heart disease or another cardiac problem be enough, or do they need to have the right skills for the job?

Strange isn't it how other processes where independence and impartiality are a key component tend not to have this requirement. In fact, a rape trial jury that included several women who had been raped or sexually assaulted would be considered unfair to the defendant and potentially traumatising for jury members. Any trans member of the review team would need to be appropriately qualified and impartial. Imagine the pressure such an individual would be under, particularly once the report was published, because the findings and recommendations would be exactly the same. Facts is facts.

So perhaps assume it's sour grapes and lies, in the absence of any evidence, on allegations that you cannot verify.

This sounds awfully like projection.

Did the OU amend their statement as Almut reported? If they did, then what is the issue with Almut's tweet?

Just a nice excuse for an ad hominim then?

The tweet in Eggs post says 'The OU has amended its announcement removing any reference to Smita Jamdar.'

If you have a receipt of Almut being racist towards Smita, please post it.

If Smita was removed from doing the OU review becuse she was biased and therefore not neutral on the very subject that she was looking into, that is a completely valid reason for not going ahead with her being part of the review that has nothing to do with her race.

Is this now your second Ad Hominim towards Almut?

two cis women

You mean two women.

It looks like the OU did indeed amend the statement as Almut Gadow said.

I am not techie enough to find old versions of websites. But there are two versions of the statement in circulation. In one (here https://www.pottershousechurch.ca/luxury/odc170898P0d52/ ) the sentence runs on to refer to Smita Jamdar. In the version posted on the OU website it does not. Also, in the version now on the OU website the sentence feels incomplete, and sounds like someone cut off the end.

How many women who are sexually assaulted or manage to escape an attempted assault have no evidence of the assault bar their word?

Is, 'she lied about an attempted assault' your third Ad Hominem?

How is posting that the OU have edited their announcement (easily verifiable, and a neutral statement of fact) smearing the OU's press office? I am genuinely baffled.