Thread by @tribunaltweets

We resume the morning session - Prof Jo Phoenix vs the Open University. Previous coverage here.
Part 2.
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

JM - did you understand this statement was referring to materials containing transphobic content, that was the Savage Minds podcast. Do you agree?
JP - I did not
JM - you keep saying 'this is helping our game', its fine to say as a public statement that their view was that

only one member of faculty had been involved and it was outside her area of research
JP - I don't agree, my discipline was other but I was researching child sexual exploitation, trafficking etc.
JM - you objected to the publication of the statement on an OU website but the GCRN

was announced on a OU website, so the statement objecting should be published there as well.
JP - I disagree.
JM - now discussing the HWSRA was saying they needed to disband because of the existence of the GCRN and the HWSRA collaborations with trans groups. Its their right to

disband.
JP - it's a threat
JM - you say its important to play the idea not the person in academia
JP - yes
JM - but you are playing the person in your whatsapp group Every.Single.Signatory......

JP - not the same
JM - now from whatsapp group 'collate and collect all screenshots', Defamation cases are difficult, HR cases and grievances are much more useful, You are exhorting your colleagues to bring grievances.
JP - I was encouraging them to consider it

JM - are you prepared to say that freedom of speech is a two way street?
JP - Yes, I'm happy to provide evidence and context to the Panel.
JM - now reading out further whatsapp
JP - that's 2 days after I had a several mental health reaction to events.

JM - reading out JP whatsapp, sounds like things are going okay,
JP - that's true
JM - another 2 weeks of trench warfare, then the sunny uplands - rather than being devastated it sounds like you were in good shape
JP - I would not agree with that.

JM - now going to a chain of emails: some people in GCRN are in the OU and some outside the OU. An email from KS (Kathleen Stock), 'a few thoughts from me....' giving suggestions on how to proceed, I'm satisfied the LSE response, taking down a statement, it seems to me generally

that things are happening fast, suggestion that there should be one spokesperson for GCRN, and wait 48 hours to respond, sounds like GCRN now has backing from the OU, let's not be dragged down to the level of others' KS seems relatively happy, that's true?

JP - I agree that's a fair summary of her views.
JM - now reading out a response to KS, 'we are still in a delicate position, it's crucial we are staid and boring academics'. Person is expressing a desire to calm it all down. You agree with that?
JP - Yes.

JM - another response - member of HWRSA - they are also taking flak, having read the statement from the Vice Chancellor, its a win. A third person who's saying 'we're winning, lets calm down and lets regroup'
JP - when we refer to a win its about the GCRN not being shut down

JM - another response - I appreciate KS point, lets not stoop to their level, you knew what would happen when you launched this network, she's right isn't she, you knew what would happen
JP - no I did not.
JM - JP response to emails - the strength of the OU reaction was expected

JP - where did I say that
JM - 2nd para of email
(batteries in microphones are running down, being swapped over).
Short pause.

JM - 'the strength of the reaction was expected' you knew what would happen
JP - I knew there would be a reaction but I was not expecting, the strength, size and velocity.
JM - then you exhort everyone to take out a grievance against anyone who circulates the letter, tweets

and give instructions about how to do that effectively, and that the open letter was fundamentally untrue, and explaining how it was untrue, focus specifically on the defamatory letter. You were exhorting them to file grievances
JP - I was not
JM - you were exhorting them to open

grievances
JP - I can see that read it that way. I was deep in PTSD and that email was more of a giving up, I couldn't cope with what was happening anymore.
JM - I will come back to the PTSD, it is wholly inappropriate to suggest that people bring grievances unless they have

something to complain about.
JP - I would explore with anyone who thought they had been bullied or harassed how to use the grievance policy
JM - you are going well beyond that point, here
JP - I disagree.
JM - moving on to another document, statement from KMI

'We are aware this network exists on the same domain as us, we disassociate ourselves from the GCRN, and remove ourselves from this domain, especially in Pride Month, we believe the health and wellbeing of our trans and non-binary colleagues is paramount.....'

JP recovers her composure.
JM - you say this is condemnation but they don't condemn you, it says 'don't condone or support' that's not condemnation
JP - I completely disagree, with the reference to Pride month, they are condemning us
(Microphone problems)
(J talks with IT)

We are continuing until 12:15
JM - there's a fuller statement from KMI,
J - we don't have that
JM - 'KMI subscribes to the OU principle of academic freedom, .........they must also be places where difficult and different views are brought forth and challenged'.

JM - not condoning or supporting is not condemning
JP - I don't agree
JM - you say this public statement made it clear that they wouldn't be associated people
JP - I don't agree
JM - they only make a statement in support of trans people
JP - I disagree, the use of 'but' makes it

condemnatory
JM - it wasn't just the GCRN that KMI removed from our servers, it was other networks.
JP - yes eventually
JM - now about the LGBT Staff Network. When did you join?
JP - off and on
JM - are you saying you were an active network
JP - I'm only saying I joined off ..

and on.
JM - now a statement from LGBT+ staff Network, only available to OU staff. They say not associated with GCRN, respect freedom of speech, the announcement without warning caused sig concern and distressed, concerned about creating an appropriate workplace and are

questioning the establishment and promotion of a network that undermines trans people. They asked for a review of the process and didn't use any hostile language.
JP - I disagree. It is hostile. In my 3 decades I have never seen a staff support network, ask for a review of how

a research network is set up.
JM - but that's not to say they are doing anything wrong.
JP - I disagree.
JM - now reading 'dear network members - sharing the OU VC statement' and response to that from CT, about hate groups. But nothing in that statement refers to you.

JP - it refers to the GCRN and so to me.
JM - you messaged the LGBT+ network later and asked for the open letter to be taken down - JPs response, comments made by presenter in Savage Minds, I'm disagreeing with Stonewall. CT says in her response 'that dissent and disagreement'

is fundamental to research. Do you not agree with it?
JP - not given that she had called you a hate group
JM - her calling you a hate group is her freedom of expression, its her view, she can say this
JP - it crosses the line to a personal attack
JM - now discussing a deleted

post.
JP - I don't recall - that was the depths of my PTSD, I was oscillating all over the place.
JM - PK was referring to the Savage Minds podcast, not to a person, the issue is that the GCRN is actually sharing transphobic views and material on its website,

JP - I do not agree.
10 minutes break.

End of Part 2 of morning session.
@threadreaderapp unroll please.