Thread by @tribunaltweets

Prof Jo Phoenix vs OU: second session of Tuesday morning's hearing to resume at 11:25.

Ben Cooper Counsel for JP will continue questioning of Prof Ian Fribbance of the Open University

BC - Ben Cooper
IF - Ian Fribbance
JM - Jane Mulcahy for OU
J - Judge
P - Panel member

We are waiting for the second sitting of the morning to start.

Tribunal is resuming

BC: Let's talk about the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies conference. This is the OU code of Practice for events as required under the law. Purpose is protect academic freedom. This version reviewed March 2020 but presumably there was an earlier version
IF yes to all

BC Were there any changes in March 2020?
IF I can't remember and wouldn't remember
BC Refers to 'controlled event' where there's a risk of a speaker causing offence or complaint. As in, speaker is distinct from the subject

IF Yes
BC If a speaker holds controversial views and they're speaking on a controversial views then you should interviene
IF Yes
BC But also there may be issue if speaker has controversial views but is speaking on a different issue

IF Yes
BC so if academic is researching controversial area, if they aren't allowed to speak then that inhibits academic freedom?
IF Yes
BC and so if I hold controversial views but aren't allowed to speak on another issue, that also inhibits my academic freedom?
IF yes

BC it's almost worse if because of your views you aren't allowed to speak on other subjects because that means it's not your views, it's you as a person that's the problem
IF arguably, yes
BC quotes 'OU will enable academic events to take

BC: place to protect freedom unless can't ensure health, safety or terrorism
IF Yes
BC so to cancel an event will be a serious decision unless you have those mitigations as in the policy
IF Yes

J: are you asking a lot of questions about this conference and what does it go to
BC: it' goes to background of the case, as to the OU general views and the general subject of the claim

BC: This was announced as a two-day conference on Prison Abolition. This is a major prestige

BC: event is it not?
IF: Yes
BC references involvement of other OU harm research group in the conference
BC: Look at statements from Richard Garside of CCJS (henceforth RG)
'Those who assert GI that is not birth sex pose (challenge?) to prison service'

BC: References RG statements about trans prisoners
and his question 'so what is to be done'
Quotes RG: 'I do not feel about to pronounce on whether TW are W but it's not necessary to take a position on this to see that the difficulties re: prisons are numerous'

BC : Quotes RG: 'prisoners should remain female-only - prison service needs to give thought to trans-only wings' 'my concern is that current systems privileges the needs of male trans prisoners' 'workable and fair solution will require calm and respectable debate'

BC: do you agree that's not transphobic
IF: yes I think I wrote I have sympathy and interest in that issue
BC do you agree it would be hard to find a more reasonable and sympathetic statement even though it's gender critical?
IF : yes that's a very reasonable statement

BC: quotes again 'we live with nuance ..welcome debate..we recognise this is complex with a number of views sometimes expressed emotively, very important views are erred and collaborative approaches developed' - there's nothing transphobic there is there
IF:" I agree
BC : hard to

BC: find a more nuanced statement?
IF : yes that's a very respectful statement
BC referencing bundle on conference cancellation
IF: I wasn't aware of the conference in the first place and wasn't aware of the conference until it had been cancelled, Obv Jo raised her concern

IF but that was after the fact as it were
BC: references statement of IF after the conference
'relationship of CCJS changed after publicity began..rumbling of rumours that some would refuse to attend'

BC reading from statement 'frankly awful statements on social media..what became a negative boycott soon became a more active one - concern about direct action at the conference'
BC the background of the cancellation was a combination of social media attacks on it?
IF yes but i

IF issue that was explained to me was that the problem was with his Twitter statements not with his other statements
BC But background was social media attacks, one speaker saying they wouldn't attend and two others considering positions because of association with Mr Garside and

BC: CCJS - so that's what leads to consideration of cancellation
IF : that's what leads to it yes
BC: that's how the policy should engage at that point
is it not
IF In broad terms yes with the caveat that the

BC: the event had become associated with praising a particular individual
J asks what doc: BC: Code of Practice for Events
BC: Code says that events should go ahead unless there's a mitigation of health and safety, criminal damage or terrorism

IF : The context explained to me for the cancellation was that it had moved away from being a celebration of a particular individual. The reason given to me was nothing to do with the Code of Practice. I was told it was to do with the purpose of the event not being possible

BC: Do you agree no mitigations - damage?
IF Agree
BC: Health and safety ?
IF: That was never tested
BC: How strongly did you test whether the conference could have gone ahead?
IF: I talked to Deb Drake and ? I asked for an accurate account of events and they gave me an absolute

IF: Assurance about the reason. It did ring alarm bells about repetitional perception.
BC: Is that your best answer on your probing as to whether this conference was really cancelled because it was no longer a celebration of Prof Jo Sim?
IF : I can't remember the details

BC: Were the objections on social media the whole reason why the conference could no longer celebration Prof Jo Sim ?
IF : No I wouldn't say that . The conference was shifting away. To be clear I would prefer that they would have asked me before
BC: Obviously then you would have

BC Looked at the policy on events
IF Yes I would be much more aware of reputitional damage
BC What happened is people agitating against RG beliefs succeeded in getting a conference cancelled
IF Yes. I think the phrase used was 'hijacked into one area of policy'
BC and if they'd

BC come to you, you would have referred to the policy
*missed*
BC so not inaccurate to say conference cancelled because of Mr Garside's views
IF: agree

BC If you're looking to build a space where GC people don't believe there'll be hostility then it's important isn't ti to take a stand where academic freedom is infringed
IF and that's why this statement directly informed when it did? when it came to the wider relationship with

IF: the CCRJ
BC: This was a breach of academic freedom wasn't it
IF: That's why I chose the word connected. I take your point that it is secondarily connected with RG views but they say it was not direct reason why
BC: But at this point the OU should have drawn a line in the sand

BC It would have sent a clearer message not to cancel the conference
IF: Well I did send a message to say any future cancellation should be discussed with me . I was concerned with repetitional issues, maybe I could say something differently, I'm not saying everything

IF was perfect
BC Wonder if in treading a line, you were yourselves influenced by the strength of feeling against GC views and that you weren't always willing to take a really robust stance
IF: I don't think that's fair at all
BC: We will revisit that

BC: Let's look further at the organisation appetite to stand up to this. Email from Prof Jon Woolf, he attaches a document. Notes of a meeting on April 15. Following recent controversy relating to CCJS and RG, and statements on trans prisoners. 'It was agreed by CCJS

BC: comments on trans prisoners might not be in line with values of (PERK?) Comments may have harmful impact on trans people, may constitute discrimination and may constitute breach of policy

Can't be any clearer that the position is that those blog posts have

BC: harmful impacts. I see this as discriminatory behaviour, very important to knowledge the harm. Also notes 'repetitional risk' if clear action is not taken to hold Garside accountable
IF: TBH that was not the paragraph that alarmed me. It was that the harm will

IF: mitigated by decision to review relationship. So I took that review out of the hands of HERC and a specifically asked them to exclude these views from the review
BC: So your alarm was that they seem to propose ending relationship with RG because they oppose his views

BC: Did you form view that there was a clear cultural approach on this debate at the OU
IF: yes I understood that to be the majority view that's why I was clear any review had to be a faculty review and not a HERC review

BC : so you agreed with Prof Woolf about need to facilitate debate but not concede to polarising discussions and dismissals
IF : Yes that's why I instructed the faculty should do the review

BC: So your specific instruction was to take out objection to RG's views from consideration of the relationship.
IF: Yes and also consider reputational and other issues

BC: references reply to Prof Toombs where you spell that out. you say 'statements from RG highly unlikely to be construed as discrimination'..'despite suggestion of harms we have to acknowledge that those opposing also talk about potential or actual harms'

IF: I agree
BC: So you were sending clear message that these are legitimate views and also telling HERC that they must not make decisions based on RG views
IF : Yes I was

BC: references HERC paper in 2020 setting out their position for the review quotes 'problematic and conflictual' - do you agree there's nothing in this document that explains what is problematic and conflictual?
IF: Yes

BC: Quotes '3 contacts at CCJS - RG and two other people. Two people left - that means relationship is mainly with Richard - departure of the other two present challenges' . It doesn't take much imagination to infer that people didn't want to work with RG because of his views?

IF: I think that's a huge leap - they may have thought it narrowed the possibility of research potential
BC: But isn't it an obvious question?
IF: No it just says it narrows research and presents challenges
BC but it frames it in context of 'problematic and conflictual' comments

IF: Partly. Could be bc it narrows areas of collaboration.
BC: If the trans prisoner comments are NOT the issue - we don't have to speculate to know that that they ARE an issue to HERC. But we do have to speculate to come up with your views on why it was decided to end

BC: the relationship
IF: Possibly but I cannot double guess the reasons.
BC: There can be multiple reasons, but for my purposes it is enough if only one of the reasons for ending the relationship with RG is the objection to RG views on trans prisoners.

BC: quotes meeting discussing whether to continue relationship.
Was it not that the effective process of the review was 'do you want to renew this" and if HERC said no, you couldn't renew it
BC: Nobody went back to HERC and said no you can't do this, you're discriminatingng

IF : Jon Woolf tested out whether some other factors contributed to not wanted to maintain a relationship
BC: He was keen on finding a way to maintain the relationship wasn't he
IF : Yes he thought it was valuable

BC: But HERC thought the relationship

BC: had run its course. The minutes acknowledge that the objections to RG views and the reluctance of others to support it, underlay the decision to end it
IF: Obviously de facto you cannot continue a partnership if the people in one party are not going to make it work

BC: I'm sure that's right but we're exploring the reasons that underpin that, and with HERC the objection to his views were one of those reasons
IF: yes that was part of it. But if you find that in three different areas of the Uni the interest was 'lukewarm' then wha

IF: what other conclusion could he come to
BC : But no one challenged that
IF: You can't drag a horse to water, what can you do
BC: So what you're essentially saying is even if our people are discriminating, we have to accept the consequences?

IF: No because there were clearly other reasons and that was tested, and what Jon said to me was that across the University there was only one person interested in continuing, and it was otherwise lukewarm
BC: But it was only HERC that had an alignment anyway

BC references email from Prof Wolf where he attaches the final version of report : 'taking your feedback on board we now have a final version' - do you remember what changes were made? do you remember trying to ensure there was no explicit reference to RG views in

BC: the final document?
IF: I really can't remember
BC: RG response 'disappointed given positive meeting' 'after that meeting I asked for feedback' 'I initiated renewal talks a year ago to give time for a review' 'we are now left a difficult position' 'can we have a

BC: 'temporary arrangement so we can still use library etc' . So that's a pretty reasonable ask considering you left it till the last minute?
IF: Yes that's reasonable
BC: but the response is 'that will be tricky to organise internally'

BC: Because you would have had to temporarily maintain fellowship of RG to give him access. I'm sure jo would propose and I would approve. However this would upset colleagues who were upset by his comments last year - to the hostile eye of the

BC: trans lobby it could give legitimacy to transphobic views'

IF: We've already agreed that would be an element in the HERC decision. I did organise library access myself I think.

BC: But it shows that even with the simplest decision (library access) the pressure is felt over the views of RG

IF : But they don't alter the ultimate decision which was to give him access to the library

BC quotes from an open letter warning about close relationship with Stonewall. 'Stonewall includes denial of gender identity as being transphobic..unacceptable restriction on free academic debate'
All of those are perfectly proper points for academics to make in a newspaper?

IF: Agree, that is a perfectly reasonable letter
BC: Drake and Downes wrote to you (?date) they say they are deeply concerned that there are two OU academics' signatures on this open letter. this is JP and JPk yes?
IF: Yes
BC: You wrote to them about the use of pronouns

BC: in response because you understand it's legitimate debate and opinions?
IF: Yes and also because JP and JPk did not say in the letter that they would not respect the pronouns of students

BC: Referring again to Downes email asking for disciplinary action and to IF response to grievance investigation panel about the complaint. You say letter did not 'overtly' say JP should be disciplined, at least that's not how I read it. let's break it down.

BC : It was a complaint to Head of Faculty saying that two members of faculty had breached policy. That could lead to disc action.
IF: There are many steps between allegations of a breach and disciplinary action. They were drawing attaention to what they say as

IF : a breach of policy, and I dismissed it
BC: refers to email to JP from IF
'I was was written to by a small group some months ago, I rejected their calls for action and I haven't heard further since' - so you at the time clearly understood they were calling for action

If: I think I was talking to Jo there. I'd have to read the whole set of emails again. The fact is their letter suggested a breach of policy and I think I actually wrote quite a robust response to them, I think my reply to them is fairly strong.
BC: Have we had that response?

J has not read the email sent from IF to Drake and is reading it now

BC: now quotes from Feminist Soc policy 'pls note that trans/NB not up for debate, all are welcome' so that means that if you don't think TWAW then this is not the group for you, so it's explicitly discriminating against you

J: Are you putting to the witness that if you don't agree that TWAW then they can't join the Femsoc
BC: Yes because that's a quote from the FemSoc 'this is not the group for you'
8nb this is actually the Feminist Discussion Group, FemSoc is my abbreviation*

BC: This is a direct statement of discrimination isn't it?
IF: It doesn't actually say they'll be excluded, it says 'this is not the group for you'
BC: That's splitting hairs isn't it.

Panel rises for

Lunch. @threadreaderapp please unroll