Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon & welcome back to Prof Jo Phoenix vs OU on Tue 10/10/2023.

This afternoon we expect JP counsel, Ben Cooper KC, to continue examining the evidence of OU witness, Prof Ian Fribbance.
2PM start

Catch up on info, full abbrevs & coverage here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Abbreviations

J - Judge Young
P - Panel member

JP or C - Jo Phoenix, Claimant
BC - Ben Cooper KC, counsel for JP

OU or R - Open University, Respondent
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, for OU
IF - Ian Fribbance, OU witness

CCJS - Centre for Crime & Justice Studies

RG - Richard Garside, Director of CCJS

GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

A comprehensive list of abbreviations is available in our substack.

We are following the case via remote access where sound levels have been difficult. Apologies in advance for anything missed.

[Technical difficulties and late start. Written notes made and uploaded later]

BC: and whilst if couslrse it's entirely legitimate for academics to express their views its legitimate for some ppl to think in an official uni email there should be more balance?
IF: reasonable criticism.

BC: and ur right in ur reply. U agree with points JP lists?
BC: you could in ur role as exec Dean said its important faculty msgs in an official capacity should be balanced?
IF: that's exactly what I did

IF: had several difficult convos and was trying to make that point
J: who did u have convo with?
IF: Dr Downe
BC: this is 3rd para of JP response to u [reads 'work is massive stress - called racist uncle - all hideous - no emotional reserves'] Tone if that passage is

In line with convos u were having with JP at time.
IF: yes
J: with who?
IF: JP
BF: let's look at faculty assembly.

BC: this is in March in 2021, we see ur exec assistant. She says received videos of faculty assembly. Short little videos to say a bit about themselves and their work?
IF: yes. Faculty had been created and was issue about size and ppl knowing who each other were

BC: Miss Meak8ns says I've been sent one for JP. Want to know if happy to do this re trans issues? So there's awareness amongst exec staff in ur office that the opposition to JP views is so strong that even a video intro shouldn't be shown at assembly. Fair?
IF: yes. She was

Aware might be a hoohar.
BC: [missed]
IF: yes I was aware of issues in dept as JP spoken about many times. Faculty level wasn't quite as intense. Onvs some ppl took opposite ideological view but fully accept that the deanery staff was aware

BC: in ur WS, u tell us in fact JP video wasn't shown?
IF: correct. I don't know how that happened. Don't know if comms team decided not to show.
BC: next relevant this was in May 2021 JP shared Reindorf report with you

IF: ur going chronologically?
BC: through relevant events.
IF: so skipping Savage minds podcast
BC: no that's 7th June
IF: OK so

BC: JP shares report with you the vice chancellor, MW and DH
IF: correct
BC: and I assume we don't need to turn up report to agree with me that conclusion reached by Reindorf had breached stat duty of JP FOS?
IF: yes

BC: that's unique occurrence?
IF: yes
BC: and great importance to an academic?
IF: yes
BC: bc FOS is foundational principle of unis. One person's FOS which was infringed was Prof at ur uni?
IF: yes

BC: she writes to tell them that and say [reads 'feels vindicated and SW guidance creates culture of fear and wrong interpretation of EA] On any other topic there'd have been no Q that ur uni would issue a prompt a statement of support for ur academic

IF: what do u mean any other topic?
BC: GC views, otherwise there'd be a statement of support?
IF: don't know how u reach that conclusion
BC: let's look at ur reaction to an earlier answer. Here JP notes not having response for 6 days

BC: noyes u have been in touch with sympathy bit notes no official response from uni that employs me or support. Says she's exceptionally sad. She's right to feel that to have NO support. Speaks volumes doesn't it?
IF: ( exhales loudly) possibly

IF: think the VC responded directly to Jo and says wouldn't be appropriate for uni to do that and hopes she has support from line manager
BC: we can follow it through. He responds to JP personally that was the right outcome but not alsympathy for what's she's suffered is it?

IF: he asks about line manager asking that and I spoke to her. Wasn't appropriate for big uni statement on the matter.
BC: he says his reaction is going to undertake a policy review?

IF: yes
BC: JP responds [reads 'hoped for support' 'felt lonely'] then VC responds saying wasn't appropriate to support. He doesn't explain why he didn't think it appropriate. U recalled that Q being discussed that right?
IF: no....no can't be. Don't remember

BC: u did acknowledge earlier that the pressure and risk of provoking rreaction probably was why you didn't?
IF: maybe...the statement wouldn't mean much to 10000 people in uni. He clearly felt not appropriate
BC: in absence from statement from uni, one thing JP did was

To send an email to her dept about outcome of reindoff report.
IF: yes
BC: she says some ppl don't agree with her but that's ok but she says nevertheless it was a landmark in no platforming and how we conduct ourselves.

She summaries the effect and [reads 'thought long and hard to write'] writes a careful email but msg to agree on academic freedom?
IF: yes
[BC taking IF through DD email chain]

BC: I just wanted to pick up ur reaction to that comment by DD. Let me suggest on this issue, Reindoff report, there isn't a fine line to walk. It's to welcomed JP is exonerated
IF: I agree but there are some ppl who believe strong expression of GC breaches freedom of others

BC: and the fact there was a significant cohort of ppl from JP dept who take that view is what was inhibiting a full throated and robust support for JP academic freedom and related in RR

IF: I actually beefed it up to academic freedom
BC: u did and we can see DD says [reads] so she's repeating what JP said. Her own comment [reads 'TG debate is fraught...']

BC: I can ask DD about that but we can see ur amendments. U remove 'at the same time' as u recognise that implies something about JP beliefs may be problematic and u take it out?
IF: yes

BC: then u add in 'academic freedom' explicitly in second para?
IF: yes

BC: so what that exchange illustrates is that the strength of opposition in her dept down inhibit the way in which u collectively as management feel able to respond to these issues. Fair?
IF: I'm thinking about it

IF: erm. Yes I mean I guess the Head of Dept is trying to find a reasonable way through a fraught situ. She's seeking my advice. I'm reasonably trying to toughen it up. Yes I would acknowledge reason for situ is that some ppl in dept have very different take on things.

J: Just to say, we're taking short break at 3pm
BC: thank you

BC: here is an email chain that runs backwards. Remind us who Natalie Baker is?
IF: person who put together newsletter. Faculty comms team
BC: she says [reads] her use of the word 'only' there reflects efforts made
IF: no no I asked to see it before it went out.

BC: this is ur email to MW, EDI Dean and SB and HCH are coming heads of LGBTplus network?
IF: yes
BC: [reads 'huge story can't be ignored'] implication u wld have liked to ignore?
IF: no

BC: I'm right when I put to u that ur were trying to make it as low key as possible. Neutral bland
IF: no it was non inflammatory. U seem to think it wrong to keep faculty on peaceful footing. Faculty has raft of things it has to do. What I mean by neutral bland is not

Celebrating victory. Perfectly reasonable to do. What I'm doing in email is reverse if what ur suggesting. I'm making it plain that coverage of RR will be covered in newsletter and a heads up to 2 LGBTneyqork chairs to say despite concerns they have to manage in group this will

Be published.
BC: thank u for that interesting answer. As a general proposition its reasonable not to inflame tensions in dept and to avoid that. U understand were looking at a discrim case and understand now GC is PC and has same status as race and sex
IF: yes

BC: if u had a group of ppl in ur dept who didn't like gay ppl, u would agree with me that wouldn't justify u treating gay ppl less favourably to avoid inflaming prejudices of that group?

IF: if a person was going to have lecture cancelled
J: I didn't hear
IF: if lecture cancelled on basis of beliefs, I can't see anything here...
BC: we'll come on to that. This is useful background point. I'm suggesting to you that if this had not

been on a topic where there tensions to be inflamed. If JP had been cancelled for giving a talk to Essex uni on topi of how delightful cats are, u would have no problem at all in giving us ur words a positively celebratory tone to ur newsletter. So u were

toning down what u would otherwise have done bc of tensions in her dept?
IF: no redrafting somes draft who doesn't know situ...as I said what I'm trying to do is tell LGBT network staff it will be published.
BC: sorry to go over 3
J: Back at 3.15

[Adjpurned. Back at 3.15]

@threadreaderapp please unroll