Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. It's Friday morning and we are expecting Prof Jo Phoenix vs the Open University to resume this morning at 10 am. Prof Phoenix will resume her evidence under examination. Our previous coverage here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

All abbreviations in our substack but key for today are expected to be:
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

SE - Sarah Earle, Prof of Medical Sociology, Director HWSRA 2016-22
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

We've just been advised that court will start at 10:15 am at the earliest. We will be back then.

Further delays are expected.

We are resuming.
A note on the public gallery. 40 people are permitted as observers, this includes press, witnesses and supporters of the claimant and the respondent. Currently about 5 empty seats.

Professor Phoenix will continue giving evidence under examination this morning.
J - apologies, I was trying to sort out my IT problems this morning. Bear with me for just a minute, I'm waiting for the bundle to download.

J - okay, I appear to have a functioning bundle.
JM - you believe that universities should not be affiliated with Stonewall
JP - I believe that unis should not rely on SW for their EDI guidance
JM - you have the right to say that don't you?

JP - yes especially as SW has a policy of no debate.
JM - dealing with small matters in your witness statements. It's not standard practice for deputy heads to appear is it?
JP - its routine
JM - you say that colleagues were trying to prevent you from doing your job,

that not true
JP - it's standard practice to set statements for discussions. Those statements in the open letter were not statements for discussions, they were presented as statements of fact and relied on pejorative statements and stereotypes and called for discriminatory action

Those calls would prevent me from building research capacity at the OU.
J - can you explain research capacity as you're using it
JP - 'research environment' is the process and procedures in which research can thrive. It's about providing the right conditions for research to

take place.
JM - let's test that in various ways. You have thought overnight and you are going back, you think your answers from yesterday were 'too positive' and you're trying to reframe your evidence.
JP - no I am not
JM - what you now do is you take that clear statement

BC - I'm sorry what clear statement?
(back and forth)
JM - I'm talking about the style of your answer, rather than your answer.
JM - one of the demands of the letter was that the OU withdraw it's public support for the GCRN
JP - yes, that's a discriminatory act

JM - you set up a chain of events this happens and then that happens, and then I can't do my job.
JP - I disagree
JM - I put it to you that I'm going to say that in my closing.
JM - your work was in no way stopped as a matter of practice
JP - it was
JM - it wasn't

JP - I was unable to teach during the grievance, I was unable to stabilise and push forward the GCRN,
JM - but it was a condition of your sick note
JP - it was because of the grievance
JM - you start in one place and then there's a chain of thoughts that takes us to another

place, it's mis-direction
J - are you saying that the witness is mis-directing the question
JM - no,
BC - Objecting - this is commentary on the evidence and submission not questions on the specific evidence
J - I think JM's point is that JP is not answering the question

JM - returning to the open letter 'they are allowed to say what they think
JP - yes, but I don't think they are allowed to call for discrimination
JM - but they are talking about GCRN arent they not you
JP - I am indistinguishable from the GCRN

JM - there are other people in the GCRN
JM - you say you felt like you were being expelled from uni life and were disgraced. Let's see what you actually said at the time. Reading out from a whatsapp group messages. That's inconsistent with feeling broken.
JP - no it is now

*not. I was trying to provide leadership and appear steady.
JM - no it's actually how you felt, you were preparing to go on the offensive, you said 4 hours later that you were going to make a formal complaint, this was planned
JP - no it was not, it was a response to the letter

JM - I disagree. You had made your complaint within an hour by email. Did you send it around the group.
JP - I don't remember, those days are very hazy.
JM - you are making tactical suggestions on Twitter, to stay silent, that 'they have overplayed their hand'

JP - it's a leadership suggestion.
JM - JPk querying is this the time to go quiet? 'The more signatures, the more they call for disciplinary' this seems gleeful and you're happy this is all kicking off.
JP - I disagree
JM - Not complaining to head of department,

but a formal process.
JP - we were just trying to defend our position and save our network where we can do important work
JM - naming everyone who signed letter in a formal grievance, you're also prompting grievances by others, those need to be individual, basis of grievance

needs to be call for discrimination, defamation, personal attacks. It's all part of the same.
JP - I know that grievance submissions are often not very well submitted. I was helping my colleagues understand how the grievance process worked.
JM - it's not that. You're saying....

fight them aren't you.
JP - I disagree
JM - 5 days later (another whatsapp participant) I've just caught up with this, seen the open letter, what nonsense, the GCRN is established, someone is expressing a sensible view do you accept that is a sensible view
JP - yes

JM - your reply is not sensible, you say 'I'm filing a formal grievance and will name everyone one of them. Every. One. Of. Them.
J - where is that?
JM - page number supplied.
JM - you knew what was going to happen, you expected the letter, the process.

JP - we were defending ourselves.
JM - whatsapp 'we are not intending to defame anyone', but your response is all about fight and attack.
JP - we were defending ourselves from aggressive action.
JM - then there was.....
JP is in distress....

JM - I don't want to upset you. Please take a moment.
JP - do you have a tissue?
JM - yes I do.
(observer supplies tissues)
(JP recovering her composure).
JP - OK.
JM - can we resume
JP - page number please
JM - talking about a podcast, 'Savage Minds'

JM - JPk says we could take it down, JP doesn't say anything problematic, it's a minor matter. You say 'no the letter was defamatory, I'm not taking it down'.
JM - the Savage Minds podcast is no longer available on the GCRN website, when was it taken down
JP - I don't know

JM - do you accept that the Savage Minds podcast was inflammatory and the reason your colleagues were minded to sign the letter.
JP - it was promoted in the faculty newsletter
JM - quoting email (following podcast) supporting free speech and also supporting trans & GC students

and colleagues (email from OU administration). Was that the statement?
JP - yes.
JM - publicly you tweeted support for the statement because you supported it
JP - yes
JM - another statement, it was on the reading list, did you read it
J - nods

JM - nowhere does it ask for the GCRN to be shut down
JP - it asks for the OU affiliation to be removed which is shutting it down
JM - that's not the same
JP - it is
JM - you're not named
JP - no
JM - the focus is the position of the OU do you agree
JP - yes

JM - reading out select statements that JP agreed with
JP - yes, I support that on trans rights and trans healthcare being rolled back in the USA.
JM - 'the existence of the GCRN kills trans people' That's not true.
JP - the full letter talks about trans rights, trans genocide

endemic rape and violence against trans people
JM - but nowhere does it say the GCRN is doing this
JP - I disagree
JM - allegation in the letters a) GCRN was launched with no consultation with gender studies
JP - I didn't know what they were doing, I wasn't part of that group

JM - but you should have done that shouldn't you? You should have found out and discussed it with them.
JP - I disagree
J - we're scheduled for a break
JM - b) the statement questioned our good faith, and that gender critical is known to convey questioning the existence of trans

people and was chosen as a deliberate provocation
JP - that's not true, in any context that statement is a bad statement, but particularly in an academic context.
J - time for a break.
Back in 10 minutes.

@threadreaderapp unroll please. End of part one of morning session.