Thread by @tribunaltweets

Tues 10/10/23 PM Part 2
[Tribunal resumes 15.19]

J: BC please resume
BC asks IF to turn up pages.

BC: just to show editing u did do. We can see include some summary of what was described as the most damning part of the RR under heading Savage Minds Podcast. You tone that down

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1711725031556878602

IF: tone down is your choice of words.
BC: no its yours
IF: no its yours
BC: its yours written here
IF: OK fair enough
BC: u sent it to (lists) and not usual to send it to LGBTplus network for review?
IF: wasn't review it was notification
BC: [reads 'any concerns let me know']

IF: no. It's a polite heads up that's this what's coming. Simple as that.
BC: Well, look in bundle 5.
[Bundle confusion]

BC: this is an email that u sent to Dr Downes when Downes raised concerns about Newsletter?
IF: yes
BC: [reads 'ran draft by Heather and EDI Wilson offering comment or amendment] So it wasn't just a heads up?

IF: fair enough
BC: so when I put to u it was not usual to send it to LGBTnetwork I was right
IF: expending this amount of energy on any topic is out of line with others
BC: newsletter included link to savage minds podcast which became stick to beat GC end?
IF: yes

IF: I didn't listen to it before either went out.
BC: u sent the link to network and they had no.concernd about it being in newsletter?
IF: no
J: can I just clarify. When u sent newsletter u say it had link to podcast?
IF: I think so
BC: we can see that on page 115

BC: we see blue underline indicating link. We can see no response.
IF: I don't know if they listened to it
J: What response are we looking at?
[BC takes J through]

BC: Professor Wilson was EDI Dean, Mr Daly and MCH were chairs of LGBT staff network.
J: Miss Wilson responded but MCH didn't.
IF: yes no response
BC: the newsletter went out on July 6

[Sorting bundle]

BC: we see the 2 refs to JP including Savage Monds podcast. Dr Downes raises concerns with you don't they?
IF: yes

BC: Chain of emails. Dr Downes in course of exchange is they're understanding is that agreement had been made to ensure trans non binary committee members in LGBT network are consulted in these matters. U reply u don't recall agreement?
IF: right

BC: they say concerns about podcast. Assume u then did listen to podcast?
IF: I skipped through bits and pieces. Didn't listen to whole thing.
BC: upshot was some of this was overtaken by GCRN wanst it?
IF: yes erm I think so

BC: do u recall ur conclusion was that there was nothing in the podcast that breached JP FOS and no steps needed taking?
IF: correct
Bc: so u did listen and conclusion it should stay in link
IF: yes

BC: Go back to 4711. This is where u say not aware of any agreements and then say [reads 'helpful to understand ur feelings'] so ur understanding what Dr Downs was saying was not specific working, it was including anything on this subject at all?

IF: that's what I took from it. I was as robust on this as I was on other things. Ppl requested I apologise and to add a statement to it but I declined. All suggestions I rejected.
BC: u conclude email with [reads 'difficulty for me wearing all these hats']

BC: I just wanted to explore that. What ur describing is the pressure u were feeling bc of importance of academic freedom and the pressure from gender affirmative side of debate to condemn and shut down on the other. Is that right?
IF: yes

IF: policy on academic freedom and was becoming clear, not just gender affirmative colleagues, other instances eg. Sunday Times letter about SW, I was attending a Pride parade march next day and I truly got it in the ear from no. Of students on parade. Had to explain FOS

IF: that point started on my journey this was going to be increasingly difficult. Just after GCRN launched when I had to mealet colleagues of Trans Network. I found that incredibly difficult to explain my rights as Dean trumped their concerns.

Bc: that's helpful description of pressures. The pressures contrary to academic freedom were not GC sire. Gc side were NOT saying close down other side?
IF: no
BC: pressure to take contrary positions was gender affirming side?

IF: yes. Some ppl on that side take view their academic freedom denied
BC: that's not quite right is. They don't say academic freedom. I understand their right to environment is infringed by those views
IF: yes some ppl say by definition impinges on academic freedom

[IF explaining how he had to explain academic freedom concept to Trans organisation as some didnt understand]
BC: that's reflected in page 96 of ur WS

IF: I also make ref there 'nor prepared to make apology'
BC: that brings us to GCRN launch. I want to see if we agree on the framework of GCRN.

BC: thisnis the research and enterprise plan in period we're concerned with
IF: afraid not printed well.
BC: this plan underpins the uni's submission and approach realsearch excellence framework which is an important measure by which uni scored and judged?

IF: yes
(Missed)
BC: so SRAs are cross faculty groups headed by director? Prof Earle head?
IF: correct
BC: in practice SRAs have a high degree of autonomy of how they run?
IF: yes
BC: offer framework to Foster collab research?
IF: yes

BC: these special interest groups are thematic outside of structure re research?
IF: yes
BC: look at doc headed 'Promotion band 2'. We know that's the role JP held at time.
IF: yes

[Difficulty with bundle as pages not legible. They are sorting]

BC: so one section of criteria is research?
IF: and 2.
BC: key criteria on research are focussed on actual research and A-F are about research individual does themselves. Then we see leadership [reads categories]

BC: so putting those together an I postnatal part of a Professor should be doing is leading research and in partic creating research groups across facultys if they possibly can?
IF: that's one example how to meet criteria

BC: Page 140 in WS bundle.
[Pagination problems]
BC: I just wanted to see if u agree with some of the benefits of being part of SRA. JP starts by saying support and resources, support individuals, looking for funding opps, Opps to organise training, events like seminars

IF: yes
BC: and then support with website, the SRA itself, were u aware was able to create website content?
IF: aware yes
BC: budget for research u can apply for?
IF: Many also apply in faculties
BC: if ur not in SRA u can't apply for SRA funding?
IF: correct

BC: [reads 'important part of being in SRA is credibility and reputation advantage'] Doesn't it?
IF: Maybe. Marginal. Yes.
BC: bit more than marginalised if u look here.
IF: it varies from SRA to SRA. I know one successful with funding and one not.

BC: if u are not part of a SRA, u will be disadvantaged as Research group?
IF: you'd prefer to be jn SRA yes. More difficult yes
BC: means u don't have the institutional home to present itself to outside world?
IF: not convinced that's huge but yes.

BC: looking ahead. If the OU had conceded to demands in open letter, it would have been making it much more difficult, impossible, for JP to do her job?
IF: it would have made it more difficult yes.

[Discussing time. Judge says we will go until 4.30]
IF: can I have a moment.
J: yes quick stretch leg as you've been sitting a while
BC: at the time we're concerned with there was no formal process for setting up SRa?
IF: don't know

BC: bc SRAs are by definition cross faculty, there's no expectation u would consult ur dept about thar?
IF: (pause) erm. I need to think about that one. There were certainly other areas where there were multiple groups researching similar subjects and where to avoid stepping on

Toes ppl did consult.
BC: so not a requirement but it did happen sometimes.
IF: it did equally happen when ppl had to navigate. (Gives examples)
BC: you're talking about existing groups with overlapping interests
IF: (missed) it wasn't a requirement.
Its not essential no.

BC: JP did inform you of RN?
IF: yes
BC: we can see there an exchange between u and Jean Macavoy. U responded about 'liklihood of GC group'. U understood a research group is what that meant?
IF: yes

BC: the Forstater judgement came out in July
IF: June
BC: yes, I should remember that.
(laughter)
BC: You've done quite a bit since then

BC: we can VC in May writing saying thanks. Subject headed 'trans issues'. This was the policy (missed). U presumably read Forstater judgment when came out?
IF: yes

BC: this is the report u wrote. I wanted to check ur understanding of MF judgment. U refer to rulings which I infer are RR and MF. You agreed with me earlier that u understood having GC beliefs is a PC in EA10?
IF: yes

[IF requesting readable copy and there is bundle confusion]

BC: so in exec summary you say [reads]. I just want to check u understood at the time that GC beliefs is PC in EA10?
IF: yes

BC: para 5 here in MF case u wrote [reads "freedom to voice GC beliefs even if offence taken"] did u take the point it's not just freedom to voice but also not subjected to detriment bc of it?
IF: yes

BC: [hard to hear] did u consider where the line might be drawn... What I'm interested in is [reads] That para seems to be focussed on expression of GC views that cross the line. No consideration of when attacks on GC beliefs may cross the line. Fair observation?
IF: (pause) yes

BC: and if look at [reads 'hate speech, violence'] Again that seems to be drawn from the MF judgment, but doesn't seem to consider question from other perspective, whether attacks on beliefs is discrim?
IF: written before meeting, by the time we discussed events moved on

IF: it was responding to launch of network.
BC: last thing. Para 14, 2 differing arguments [reads] (missed) That's where I'll finish.
[Judge asks if more and BC says he will try to make use of minutes remaining]

BC: The GCRN was launched 6 says after MF judgment.

BC: this is a letter from LGBTplus network and asking a number of questions. His Q number 5 [reads about timing of launch] Your response is [reads 'don't think uni was told of timing if events which I imagine driven by MF']

BC: one thing u were recognising was strength of reaction was such u could understand why they didn't go consulting widely in advance?
IF: that's my guess
BC: It’s a good guess.

BC: you'll see here an email u won't have seen at the time from JP to KS. Do u see 'keep under radar at the moment'?
IF: yes
BC: so u recognised that the likely reaction to any proposal of such a network would have had attempts to shut it down before it started?

IF: your wording is not correct. No prospect whatsoever that management would shut it down
BC: not an unreasonable concern from network?
IF: they would have certainly faced opposition and difficulties. I'd evidence clear statement of

academic freedom that VC would not have shut it down.
BC: given what u already knew about opposition to GC beliefs its not fair or reasonable to characterise their decision as uncollegent is it?
IF: I can understand why they didn't. I accept that.

BC: wouldn't be fair to say uncollegant?
IF: don't want to answer yes or no to that. In undertsand why they did. Would've been better if we'd known in advance. It could've been managed better
BC: you did know something was going to happen?
IF: yes

BC: am I right that u didn't press and ask more details?
IF: can't remember
BC: ur answer has focussed on what JP may have shared with u but implicit in ur answer is that it wouldn't be productive for her to go and tell all she was going to set up the network?
IF: yes

BC: I'll end there for the day.
J: best to start earlier tomorrow. [Asks IF if 9.30 is all right and he confirms]
We'll start at 9.30 tomorrow.

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll