Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to part 2 of the afternoon session; the first part of the afternoon is here.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1711362254287847501

We'll begin with any questions the panel have for PB (Dr Paraskevi Boukli) and any re-examination by JM

We begin.
[reminder that I only have audio, not video, so it may be hard to tell who is speaking]

J: Qs for Dr Boukli. Not too many.

P: You often referred to facilities and services. What did you mean?
PB: I mean toilets and change rooms, and, services that's in the context of say victim services - not so much in OU but in general.

PB Access to services for transgender people, support services, medical services, health services. In society more widely.

P: what was OU not doing?

PB: Not capturing pronouns - optional in email signature, but, nowhere to look them up.

P: How did the creation of GCRN affect the services the OU provided?

PB: OU had not made commitments to transgender and nonbinary staff and students about pronouns, and about facilties.

PB so when the open letter came, it was on top of all those things, about trans visibilitity, wanted OU to commit to change. By fully supporting gender critical view, would be no point in introducing pronoun support or inclusive non binary toilets - all were binary at that point

J: no more panel Qs. Reexamination?
JM No

[PB evidence ends]

[New witness - IF = Professor Ian Fribbance Executive Dean Arts & Social Sciences. OU. Takes seat etc]

[JM takes IF through affirming witness statement and confirming it's correct and signed etc]

BC: Alert J that may take longer re IF than planned, but will try to make up time with other witnesses later.
J: More than 3 hours?
BC: Yes - in cases with a lot of witnesses later ones come quicker - have discussed with JM. Will take most of tomorrow I think.

BC: IF in your statement you say you got to know JP well and became friends
IF: yes
BC: you introduced her inaugural lecture May 2019
IF: yes
BC: Here's transcript of your intro to it.

BC: You presumably discussed with JP in advance?
IF: yes I think so
BC: Penultimate paragraph you say JP is living embodiment of spirit of OU?
IF: Yes I made up the phrase, but was alluding to her academia history - entering later in life.

BC: She says she had waited to do inaugural at OU and had turned down 2 other offers - her spiritual home?
IF: Her phrase, but, yes.
BC: So in 2019 she had indicated to you that she was here to stay, at the OU?
IF: yes - no indication she intended to leave.

BC: 2 and half years after that, as her friend - you witnessed increasing disillusionment with OU?
IF: Not sure I'd put it quite like that, but yes aware of disquiet.
BC: Disquiet because of her perception of hostility to her gender critical beliefs?
IF: Yes that is what she saw

BC: Some documents to look at for context to that.
BC: You dealt with several aspects of the GCRN, not just JP?
IF: Yes 3 of these members are in my faculty.

BC: You had to deal with a death threat to Jon Pike - who says you gave him robust support about it
IF: Yes
BC: Did you regard yourself as a supportive friend to JP in all this?
IF: Yes as a friend but Dean also has responsibilities to OU policies eg re academic freedom

IF: what is this document?
BC: A lot of messages in whatsapp group, mainly the GCRN members.
BC: [page ref] 12/2/21 discussion about the "LGBTQ+" newsletter - you remember?
IF: Yes

BC: This person says you had been supportive of her when her department "blew up" in 2019?
IF: Yes. I had a number of conversations with her, and with other department members.

BC: You spoke to JP reasonably frequently after that?
IF: Yes - online obviously during pandemic
BC: And she described her isolation?
IF: Yes
BC: You weren't under the impression she was happy about it?
IF: No.

BC: You didn't have the impression she was enjoying a fight with them all?
IF: No. I think JP would acknowledge she was sometimes combative re her her position
BC: Because she was under attack.
IF: I think she was exploring her position, refining.

BC: Once GCRN formed, you knew she was distressed by the reaction?
IF: I was a bit surprised - I would have thought she would have thought more about it in advance.
BC: You mean she was more cowed than you expected?

IF: Yes - less resilient than I might have expected - but, her mother had recently died and she'd had health problems. But I was a bit surprised.

BC: Going to explore your role a bit. You were Executive Dean for faculty of arts and social sciences. Responsible for academic activities including research?
IF: Yes
BC: for complaints?
IF Yes. Obviously all of these things involve other people too.

BC: You are ex officio member of Vice Chancellor advisory group. [looking up a doc re this]

BC: These are some minutes - lists members - VC Tim Blackman. So in 2021 deputy is
[listing names of all these positions - too fast for me to get down. There are half a dozen VC & deputy type posts, 4 or 5 deans]

BC want to discuss how this group makes decisions. How does it work?
IF: bit like a cabinet meeting - sort of collective decision making - often disagreements - and then collective position, like cabinet responsiblity.

IF: ultimately, it's advisory so VC decides - but that is very rare.
BC: We'll be looking at public statements by VC - how are these developed? Who does first draft?
IF: could be one of several people - it would depend.

J: Who was the first group you suggested could?
IF: The advisory group members. One of us.

BC: You were also part of what we've seen called a working group. [doc ref] We can see email from [missed] June 2021, proposal to create a working group for complaints, reputational risk. This is re GCRN launch?
IF: yes

BC: Your statement says who the members of this group were.
IF: Yes. It did evolve over time but those were original group.
BC: Can you expand?

IF: Can't remember dates but we had one person leave OU - and someone joined from Scotland because interested in the issues - people from Comms came and went.

BC: How did decision making work in this group?
IF: Collective discussion - sometimes we could decide, sometimes referred things to VC
BC: was there a chair?
IF: Usually the university secretary, or the head of HR

BC: was there disagreement?
IF: Yes but we almost always reached agreement even if with differences of enthusiasm
BC: You're also a member of the senate and of the council. Can you describe.

IF: Council is like a governing body in a school - responsible for statutory compliance etc, about 20 people. Senate is academic oversight and mostly academics.

BC: My next topic is quite long - shall I make a start or hold till tomorrow? Academic freedom.
J: Let's make a start.

BC: This is part of the Reindorf Report into Essex university - describing statutory duty for universities re freedom of speech. Were you aware of this duty throughout the period we're discussing?
IF: Yes

BC: And of corollary duties to ensure policies about ti
IF: Yes

BC: Statement by Nicola Dandridge, chief exec of office for Students. You see it says "we support widest possible definition of FoS - " can you confirm you understand the "within the law" part of this - discrimination, harassment?
IF: Yes

BC: You agree that vital part of FoS is that academics must be allowed to discuss ideas some may find offensive?
IF: Yes
BC: That university must take active steps to secure this?
IF: Yes

BC: Including duty to ensure things are not cancelled because people's views are unpopular?
IF: yes re academic conferences. Must take *reasonable* steps to secure

BC: Do you agree that one method of failing to do this is a culture of confirmity?
IF: Yes I do - this is not the only political / social / cultural matter where that could be a concern.
BC: Am sure there are.

BC: If a culture of that kind manifests itself in such a way that it becomes very stigmatising it might lead to self-censorship?
IF: potentially yes

BC: It might lead to people afraid even to associate with groups or with people holding an unpopular view?
IF: Potentially yes

BC: More of the Reindorf report. She notes people had told her there was a culture of fear about holding gender critical views - and that another had said "good, I hope there is" about that.

BC: And Reindorf also notes evidence about people afraid to deviate from the majority opinion.
BC: Do you agree - never mind the topic - that this is a good example of what I was talking about?
IF: This is what she observed at Essex.

BC: And I'm extending that to ask you the theoretic possiblity of what we were talking about.
IF: Yes I can see that
BC: And that would impact on academic freedom?
IF: Yes, though, views change over time.

BC: And would you agree that what Reindorf reports at Essex is standard for academia in general?
IF: Can't comment on other universities
BC: Is it at the OU?

IF: I think different at OU from Essex. I was aware of differing and voiced differences of views. GCRN could not have been set up at Essex. So not the same

BC: Prevailing, though?
IF: Yes would agree more gender-affirmative than on gender-critical side. But, this isn't the only issue where that's true, and, many people neutral too.

BC: Gender-affirmative side more voluble in their criticisms, than gender-critical?
IF: Not sure. Different form, certainly.

BC OK let's take that now. Can you point me at any occasion where a gender-critical person said gender-affirmative beliefs should not be researched?
IF: No. But I don't think the OU situation is the same as it was at Essex.

BC: there are a small number of gender critical academics who have put their head above the parapet. Not one has escaped being called transphobic and told they should not be allowed. Is that fair?

IF: Well depends where you mean. I'm not on Twitter. So I didn't see much of that until towards the end of the period we're discussing. I don't recognise it as a massive problem.

BC: But once the GCRN launched - massive numbers
IF: Yes lots of signatories.

BC: One more thing to look at before we stop for the day. This is email from JP end of 2019 to you. She is noting the sort of pressure going on in the faculty. She has had staff campainging against her and JPk. She sends you a facebook message she's talking about.

BC: The facebook group says dissenting voices are not welcome. She is sending you examples of the sort of stuff she's having to deal with, and pointing out that other gender critical colleagues might be more timid than her and JPk.

BC: You say you don't know what to suggest re other unknown colleagues. You talk about cultural homogeneity of the staff. "Expected views on a number of issues"
IF: Yes

IF: Yes I think I was mainly thinking about how people were viewing the Brexit referendum, and comments about educational level etc.
BC: But including sex and gender
IF: Yes but other issues too.

BC: You say in email you might call it out one day if feeling brave. You felt the pressure yourself.
IF: More noticed it, than felt it.

BC: Good point to stop for today.

J: Thank you. IF, must not discuss the case overnight.
J: Observers please leave.
[ENDS]

@threadreaderapp please unroll