Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will shortly be live tweeting from Day 6 of Prof Jo Phoenix v Open University.
See over coverage to date here tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Our full set of abbreviations is in our SubStack but the most frequently used are:

J Judge Young
P Panel or panel member
JP Prof Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU The Open University, Respondent (R)
BC Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R

We are still in the waiting room.
JP has finished giving evidence and we anticipate her witness is to be cross examined in this morning session.

We are in at 10.12am.
They are setting up the room for today's session.

J BC are you ready to call your witness?
BC Yes I am, and I have nothing else to discuss this morning

BC Describing set up for witness and witness statement [hard to hear]

JM You are director of health and wellbeing? And Co chair for SW group with X?
?SE Yes

SE Yes, the ? RES work is strategically important
JM You reference the importance of collaboration with support for junior colleagues
SE It's part of the infrastructure...
JM Under org report, you support collaborate across the whole OU [is SRA which she describes]

SE: Yes, describing time spent. It's important that indivs work together [is very hard to hear]
SE Part of the reason the SRA was set up was to introduce ppl working in the same area despite working in the same area. About 120 researchers.

SE: It was a mailing list that ppl joined, yes
JM Describing challenges in researching and SRA finishing early??
JM You describe collaboration and you say it's v important to have r'ships with external people. And mention work with an NHS trust and external stakeholders

JM in the sexual health group. Mentions work abroad
SE Yes many academics work externally
JM Integrating care for trans adults and working w other groups
SE Yes I'm a member and understand it's important work
JM When grant makers make funds they expect visible

JM presence of their funding and funds are used widely. They need to be kept up to date with events?
SE Yes, thats a fair summary
JM Feb 21 was when you first discussed the GCRN with JP?
SE Yes, I understood they'd put it out when they were ready
JM But they brought it forward

SE Yes, due to the Reindorf
JM Discussing timings and wordings
SE Yes I work in sensitive and controversial groups so my decision making at the time re the GCRN was the same as my typical process. I didnt want to discriminate against JO as I was aware of her cancellation

SE I took the decisions I normally take and didnt alert anyone before, as I felt she may be discriminated against
JM Let's unpick
SE I didnt think the scale of the heat wld be as it was
JM Didnt you think it sensible to share information
SE No, I work in sensitive areas

SE And didnt want to discriminate
JM Noone had a heads up that a controversial group was about to be launched
SE Yes, I think JP talked to Jo and MArcia and I suspect she thought she'd be cancelled before the gp was launched
JM we dont agree

SE: We had more than one discussion [with JP] and I decided to treat her the same as I would anyone else
JM: JP to JpK and LM email re "I've asked SE re her preliminary actions.." were you aware of the heat?
SE I wasnt aware of the scale that followed
JM Discussing the dark arts

JM Priming the ground beforehand..
SE No I wasnt involved in these discussions, we just talked about the work in the SRA and types of support she should expect from us
JM: discussing emails Spring 21 and surgery timetable "We a ploughing forward with an Autumn launch

JM She was pleased to have a web presence?
JM the logo caused a problem?
SE Yes I said it shld come down and was concerned. I was told there's a process to apply to use the shield. I told them to apply for the shield
JM Which they did?
SE Yes, and got permission to use it

JM: This email chain between JP, SE & JPk [reads out re dates and possible meeting]?
SE: Yes, correct
JM: I shall pencil in X date. This was clearly overtaken by events?
SE: Yes, it was
JM: This email trail involving HM and SE to ensure she's up for it and fully understands the

level of complaint she's going to get
SE None of us understood it wld be this bad
JM Nobody gave a heads up to say what wld be happening?
SE There's no protocol for this
J Whys is it important that no notice was given?
JM Because an enormous kerfuffle when it was launched

JM Esp with the podcast so u need to understand the response due to this lack of awareness. Also the collegiality and a letter from the RSS group as work they were doing was impacted, in fact they had to close a group. So the response is all tied up and only MW being told and IT

J Yes, we're looking at whether this was harasment and I'm not saying the context is important
JM Yes we say it's vital. Also the objective element of what is harrasment, esp when you see comments by JP about poo hitting the proverbial. As well as whether harrasment

JM: To prevent GCRG being deprived of resources, but this wasnt about individuals?
SE: Individuals expect support but.. [unclear]
JM: You say the letter says the most appalling things suggesting rape and murder of trans people. There's no suggestion GCRN are

responsible for this?
SE I disagree. It's an strange letter and I was so upset I cldnt engage with the letter.
JM: One reason for upset was lack of notification
SE I didnt think there shld be
JM The term of GC being used?
SE I disagree this was an issue
JM Freedom of speech goes

outside unis
SE I'm not an expert on FoS
JM Discussing the podcast. They didnt see the fit was correct with the SRA?
SE They can say that but I disagree about the fit
JM I didnt think all academics shld have been contacted prior, but PK and SASH shld have been informed as they

work with trans ppl?
SE The RSSH group [clarifying with J]
JM [repeats the Q]
SE JP prob wasnt aware of that project at the time, but I was aware of it. I wasnt concerned and I wanted to treat her work the same and not potentially discrim against her

SE Ppl could have joined the group later and were invited to do this
JM This could have closed down the RSH group and all the work over the past 5 yrs?
SE They didnt close though
SE They closed down within the wider group [unclear]

JM All groups taken of the server. So at the end of this, there's never been a try to close the GCRN has there?
SE If you try to close down the infrastructure thats what yr doing. So I disagree
JM Talking about cancelling SRA
SE It was effectively stopped by the actions and I

cldnt pretend to continue it
[missed a bit]
JM: Thank you Professor

J: That was quicker than I thought so we'll take a break now until 11.15 and think about any questions we might have for this witness after the break.
Adjourned until 11.15am

Apologies as there's a lot of rustling of papers that makes it hard to catch some of the testimony.

We're waiting to be admitted remotely...sometimes there is a delay in us being able to join the hearing until after it has begun

We have not been admitted into the hearing from the online waiting room yet.

It appears it might be my internet connection not working so will try to tweet from my phone once I've been readmitted to the room.

Although now I have re-entered the waiting room... it's unclear whether court has been back in session or not. Many apologies for the confusion.

Apparently PB (witness for OU) has been affirmed and is being cross examined by BC - although I don't have remote access I'm afraid.

I am still in the waiting room although I know that other people currently have remote access, very frustrating

Apologies as it appears I have missed any panel questions and cross examination of SE by SE. And I am now missing the beginning of BC's examination of P Boulki (PB).
I am requesting others ask in the remote chat that I be admitted to remote access.

I'm in 11.51

BC Is it right there was a proposed amendment to the debate supporting the right to freedom of debate?
PB I dont recall witnessing this statement. I was only hearing parts of the mtgs
BC Do you recall the C's beliefs being compared to Holocaust denial?
PB No I dont

BC Discussing email from JP re listening with keen interest to what you wanted to say, so you were discussing this debate?
PB This is a sepparate debate
BC I dont think it is
PB This is the only debate that I had.
J Are you talking about this debate on p154?

BC You were part of this debate about academic freedom?
PB This is not what I said as one of many speakers. I said it shld apply to everyone but we shldnt be using biological arguments to include or not a partic group. We shld be fair

BC Discussing emails w Head of Dept DD. Why did u send the exchange to her?
PB Cos at that point I received a lot of materials from the OU portraying T ppl not in a +ve light
BC Why did u keep files in a folder?
PB To discuss wit Jo
BC Did u discuss further with DD?
PB No I didnt

BC: discussing WApp msgs, referring to a submission re Rowan Thomas's talk on academic freedom. Do u recall seeing these notes in prep for a debate?
PB Yes
BC He was saying that academic to research freely but not have a platform - unacceptable views shld not be given a platform

PB No that's not right re his definition of academic freedom
BC It's clear these msgs are being sent during the meeting? Do u remember?
PB No
BC You supported denying freedom of speech for GC beliefs?
PB No I wasnt having any part of this debate
BC That cant be true, looking at

BC bundle, you refer to a difficult UCU meeting including discussions on freedom of speech for GC academics
PB I can see I said it was a difficult mtg but I dont recall which mtg this was
BC I'm saying u were in both mtgs as u sent emails following both mtgs

J Asking for clarification re dates of debates, tho I understand there were 2 debates
BC Yes, these are the 2 debates I'm talking about
J Are you [PB] talking about other debates?
PB I dont think I was at the 1st debate
J We are talking about Jan 21st
PB I beleive there was

PB another UCU debate
BC But you were there for both of these 2 mtgs?
PB I believe so, for parts online
BC You disapproved of the motion about GCs having FoS?
PB No. I'm committed to FoS to all incl academics and no-one shld feel marginalised or ostracised at the uni

BC U think GCs shldnt have a platform?
PB No. I wasnt keeping minutes but dont believe so
BC No Wmails re Platforming attempts are backfiring
PB No. I see this as no-one shld be no platformed
PB We feel T ppl shld have the same rights to services and rights as everyone else

BC U werent welcoming GC beliefs?
PB This was about deadnaming, not complying/using my preferred pronouns, problems accessing toilet facilities - before I left the OU. Some colleagues werent positive about T rights, against me
BC But this isnt about academic freedom?

BC U dont approve of these GC beliefs?
PB No I'm describing my experiences and this statement wasnt about the mtg or its contents
BC I say the ccoling of yr r'ship w JP was more to do with ?? [ missed]
PB No
BC Re your Feb 21 email to Dr Drake and DD, you discuss a newsletter

that Sophie Grace Chappell had contributed to finding it upsetting the piece had gone out at the same time as LGBT History month, you mention a Prof, you mean JP dont you?
PB No it was about someone else
BC Discussing upset about lack of response to inaccurate infomation being

BC spread about?
PB No, it's about the LGBT History month incl the C's email, and ppl responding to trans visibility day. And emails protesting about these 2 events, incl the C, but mostly from members of the GCRN. Colleagues had circulated Trans visibility materials

PB These are such a contested issue that we shldnt be expected to align with these positions, but not coming from JP.
BC Yes, these are contested. It's inappropriate for us to expect to agree w these positions. You were expecting a rebuke to these comments from senior staff?

PB No, this was just my statement and I didnt ask for anything else. If we dont respect T day of visibility and is nothing to do with what SGC said, and I felt I shld say something
BC That's not my Q. Listen carefully. You were saying a prof shld have been rebuked for expressing

Bc her views?
PB No, this was about T day of visibility which shld have been promoted
BC You shld not have responded about this position on T rights?
PB No. Having affirmed as a T incl employer the uni shld accept preferred pronouns etc

BC Now discussing article (? which one) and the problematic phrases "biological male" and "male bodied" about sport. Is this the article you are referring to?
PB So it could be but I dont remember
BC So it wont have been JPk article?
PB I dont recall after this time

BC This is about TW inclusion in women's sport?
PB I cant recall which article I was writing about
BC You understand the argument re TW participation in sport?
PB It depends on the nuance in the GC argument and which argument yr talking about

BC But y'll need to speak about bodies in this context?
PB It depends
BC If you cannot use these phrases you cant discuss forcefully can you?
PB I disagree
BC It misrepresents the PC of GR, doesnt comply w the EA and non-discrimination and the OU's ploicy on inclusion

BC You believe describing T ppl in this way is non-compliant with the EA?
PB It was portraying them as male..
BC Looking at the JPk article on p5545, paraphrasing it says only IDing as a woman gives a man access to all female spaces?
J asking for article

BC I'm saying the witness is mistaken in believing this article is by JPk, and it wasnt written by him. So, the quotation you give is pretty clearly taken from what I read to you, so can we agree this must be the article you were talking about?
PB HMmmm. I dont know

PB It's not identifiable if it is or not.
BC We can see from the link and url its title
PB I cant recall this
BC You seem certain in recalling the article is from JPk so what do u remember?
PB It feels odd I'd mention this when it was uploaded at a different time

BC The url is identical and the phrases match so can you convince me yr talking about another article?
PB I dont remember this article at all
BC You contend a GC academic cannot use these terms without breaching the OU?
PB No. Sex is immutable but if ppl identify by a gender..

J Asks her to answer the Q
PB Yes, ppl can say what they want as FoS. I was concerned with the OU responsibility to comply w the law
BC So ppl can write this but it shld not be published?
PB No. OU has obligations to gnc students and such even tho they have FoS

Bc So academics can research these topics, and publish them. what exactly breached the EA?
PB All staff shld be treated fairly, equally and with dignity. i said I hoped the OU were getting legal advice as some things were degrading to T ppl
BC I suggest yr position is ppl shld

BC not have a platform for this debate?
PB No
BC Do u feel it's a legitimate research topic?
PB Yes. Talking about parts of her email that have been used within evidence.

BC [moves to p4525] You were asked in yr interview re legitimacy of GC research and you gave a different

answer and dodged the Q. U described differently?
PB Yes
BC Yr pointed non answer to the Q suggests that u dont find it a suitable area of research?
PB No research shld be mindful of minority groups
BC U dont feel these beliefs shld be discussed?
PB No

BC Now discussing the Savage Minds podcast, and the newsletter PB complained about. One small point in your witness statement, it's part of "In the News" newsletter?
PB Yes
BC This is regular feature in the monthly newsletter?
PB Yes
BC Is where academics have been in the media?

PB Yes
BC So by definition they're not about work issues?
PB No, it's not about any aspect of our lives eg our personal lives
BC It covers JPs deplatforming at Essex?
PB Yes that was the focus of the piece. I was really upset a colleague wld feel like that
BC But no problem with

the subject matter?
BC No [missed small bit here]
J In case you wondered, we will break at 1pm

BC This is your email to DD in June raisning concerns re podcast in the newsletter?
PB Yes
BC You have 3 areas of complaint. 1st is assertion that SW went wrong when T rights included

BC After SW doing such good work previously, they were in the vanguard of non-discrimination against lesbians. And I used to be pleased with SW being present but with the joining of the rest of the alphabet etc

BC She doesnt regard T ppl as the same as LGBs? That's legitamate point isnt it?
PB No. It draws a distinction betwn cis and trans ppl
BC no it doesnt. It draws between LGB and T. It doesnt say anything derogatory does it?
PB It says they're a distinct group that dont have the

same rights as LGB
BC No it doesnt. Let me put it this way. You could be lesbian and black....
PB But it shouldnt exclude these ppl
BC But it doesnt. By definition groups can be exclusionary as they focus on partic minorities. Do you follow?
PB No

Pb It draws a distinction between ppl and we all have different experiences
BC But that's an argument in not having any categories and constituencies? It doesnt have to represent the interests of other groups, or do u see this as discriminatory?
PB I dont see this

PB I dont follow the argument that it's only T that are singled out
BC Do u accept there's an argument about self ID conflicting w the rights of other ppl?
PB Yes in certain situations
J Asks for clarification
BC Do you understand that some GC L & G ppl feel their interest come

into conflict with self ID
PB No. I'm not familiar w that argument, eg around service provision
BC Well imagine for lesbians there cld be an argument re SS spaces..
PB Yes, and the EA covers these w exeptions
BC Well there's a debate about this and SW have a certain position and

SW's position of no debate is a folly, isnt it?
PB Hmmm
BC She was being reasonable?
PB No, she was saying it was the worst tactical move ever that made SW seem they'd made a massive error
BC what's wrong w making that point?
PB It isnt but I felt it was making a point about

?? [sorry missed]
BC We'll leave it up to the tribunal to decide about that shan't we? I think it's time to leave it there.

J Reminds witness they cannot speak about case whilst still giving evidence.

J requests the Savage Minds podcast to listen to and not just read transcript

Adjourn for lunch

@threadreaderapp unroll