Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning, it's Wednesday morning and we expect Professor Jo Phoenix vs Open University to resume at 0930
JP - Prof Phoenix
BC - Ben Cooper JP Counsel
JM - Jane Mulcahy OU Counsel
J - Employment Judge Young
P - One of two panel members with her
IF - Professor Ian Fribbance, OU

Other abbreviations:
CCRJ - Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
RG - Richard Garside, of the CCRJ
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network set up by JP and others
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology

HERC - Harm and Evidence Research Collaborative at the OU
Full list of abbreviations on Tribunal Tweets Substack tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Waiting for the hearing to resume.

Hearing is resuming

Clerk : Hearing delayed and not sure what time it will resume

Hearing is resumed
Discussing of timetable with J, BC and JM

BC: discussing reducing time for other witnesses due to time spent with IF. Further review at the end of the day

BC continuing examination of witness IF
BC: Much reaction after launch of GCRN called for OU to take action by treating GCRN differently to other networks
IF: Yes
BC: You understood this to be because of a general claim that GC beliefs are harmful to T ppl

IF: In gen terms yes but some colleagues argued that it would impinge on their own ac freedom
BC: but that's still a gen opposition to GC views
IF Yes
BC: Di you understand at the time that those were calls to discriminate unlawfully bc of GC Beliefs
IF: broadly speaking yes

BC: It was clear to you that the reaction was having a significant impact on JP?
IF: Yes I know JP quite well, she'd had a challenging year for various reasons and was oscillating
BC : and she made it clear that it broke her?
IF: Those were her words
BC: Did you think that was

BC an accurate description of her reaction - you don't think she was trying it on?
IF No
BC Was it clear the reaction was affecting ppl's willingness to join it?
IF that's more arguable. The original members of the GCRN have remained and I believe a number of academics

IF from outside the OU have joined the RN so I don't think that, no
BC: Do you think ppl within the OU were afraid to publicly associate themselves with the GCRN
IF : We saw comment and emails yesterday saying ppl were afraid to express their views in gen terms not specifically

IF afraid to join the RN
BC Do you think an open letter signed by 150/350? staff, and public statements issued by organisations fo the OU and the RSSH group, saying you are part of a group that is transphobic and shouldn't be given a platform by the uni is obviously going to

BC be an inherently upsetting thing
IF Possibly
BC Being called a transphobe is a serious moral charge in a contemporary world isn't it
IF Erm well it's clearly an area of highly contested cultural political and social debate yes
BC but having those things said about you is

BC stigmatising and reputationally damaging
IF Potentially yes
BC If those things were said about you?
IF You get lots of things said about you as a senior manager. If it was aimed at the GCRN it's obvious who those individuals.

IF are, although the letter was directed at the GCRN it's obvious who the individuals are but it didn't pick out the individuals, it referred to the group as a whole
BC But the names are available to see on the website
IF Yes
*looking at bundle*

BC: Presumably you saw this ? (not clear what he's referring to)
BC; It's not common for a call to withdraw support for research
IF no it's not common
BC can you think of any other instance
IF there have been some bizarre things in the past, concerning Greek and Turkish

IF culture and Israel boycotts but it's not common
BC and they didn't involve calls to shut down networks
IF no
*clear now that he's referring to open letter*
BC : did you understand that the fundamental objection was to having a GCRN posted on Official OU channels

IF: Yes
BC: You didn't understand eg the Savage Minds podcast to be anything other than examples - you didn't understand that if something was done about the savage minds podcast that would satisfy the signatories
IF No
BC did you understand the letter to be saying

BC in the last paragraph that the very existence of the network had a deleterious effect on the lives of trans and queer people
IF Yes
BC Quotes 'we stand opposed to alignment of OU with GCRN (paraphrase)' Did you understand implication to be that the very existence of the GCRN

BC had the effect of creating environment of hostility and harm
IF Yes
BC did you understand it to be a call for the removal of all formal platforms for the RN so it could exist only as a n informal group
IF Broadly speaking yes
BC It must at least include removal of

BC alignment with Health and Wellbeing SRA
IF I would think so yes
BC A letter of this kind inviting as many ppl as poss to sign it and with more than 350 sigs is bound to make the members of the GCRN feel unwelcome in the Uni isn't it?

IF : To an extent yes
BC : It is also an explicit call for the OU to discriminate unlawfully isn't it
IF : I think I've already agreed that
Judge clarifying answer from IF

BC: You will tell me and I don't doubt that no matter how many people signed there was no possibility that OU would agree
IF : Agree, and we said we were committed to ac freedom
BC : but it is in the nature of open letter calling for ppl to sign that it must be an attempt to

BC Apply pressure by numbers
IF Generally yes that's the purpose of open letters
BC I think you agreed with me that public calls for discrimination would be over the line
IF NO I think I said they would be challenging to ac freedom - don't forget that unis also have a

IF regulatory duty on student body of freedom of speech
BC Yes but we went through all the policies and I thought you had agreed that a public call for uni to discriminate would cross the line within that policy
IF I would struggle to believe that this is outside our other

IF duty to enable freedom of speech. But I would agree this is close to or over the line
BC refers to part of training by 'Eversheds' to OU comms team 2020/21 refers to bullying and harassment policy 'bully and harassment could be

BC result of mobbing behaviour [as in open letter *paraphrase*]
IF I'm not sure, I wouldn't like to say if that's mobbing behaviour

BC refers to LD tweet with a link to the open letter and call to sign it - Isn't this an obvious example of a member of staff encouraging a pile-on or mobbing?
IF Well it's a call to sign the letter
BC *refers to LD retweet with pic and twitter handle of JP - so this is a tweet

BC saying 'just to let you know OU has launched it's own transphobic TERF network' and it clearly identifies her - do you know the term TERF
IF yes
BC do you know it's associated on social media with abusive language
IF Yes I have heard that

BC do you agree that one very common form of discrimination on PCs is to label everyone with a PCs to have same traits or stereotypes
IF broadly speaking yes
BC so here is an LD tweet that stereotypes GC ppl and uses abusive language don't we
IF well I think that for some people

IF that also goes in the opposite direction , that some trans ppl think that GC beliefs are an attack on then
BC You are attempting equivalence. The RN was not trying to stop Gender identity research was it?
IF No but trans people believe that GC ppl threaten their existence

BC but we agreed that expressing an opinion is not the same as expressing it in a harassing way . This is a member of the OU rT'ing a tweet which stereotypes GC people, which uses an abusive term and identifies the individual isn't it

IF I agree in general terms and that it includes ref to an individual
BC and under your policies that is very plainly over the line for harassment isn't it because it is negatively stereotyped individual criticism
IF It doesn't invite anybody to do anything does it? the ask of

IF the tweet is for the Uni to do something
BC I wasn't referencing any particular part of the tweet
BC refers to bundle

BC Prof Earle received this as member of RSSH group and sent it to you on 22 June so you were aware that within RSSH group they were organising a vote on a letter to attack the GCRN - do you agree
IF So yes they were organising a vote on the four bullet points

BC and we see the first bullet point was that if the GCRN was not remove from the RSSH then it would disaffiliate from the SSRA - do you see that
IF I don't see it as a threat but yes they didn't want to be associated with SSRA if GCRN was
BC I think we agreed the nature of a

threat
IF That's not something unfavourable, they're just saying it's something they wanted to do
BC How is that not unfavourable to have a major group refusing to associate with the SSRA - that's discriminatory isn't it ?
IF My understanding is they thought it would impede

IF their work, I'm not saying I agree with any of this, clearly some people feel the expression of those (GC) views is in itself discriminatory - so that's up to them surely
BC but they go on to invite members to support the enclosed statement calling for that disaffiliation

IF yes
BC let's go to statement itself of June 24 and presumably you knew it was coming
IF Yes
BC quotes 'we make up majority of the SSRA group' - so it's expressly placing reliance on weight of numbers isn't it
IF Yes

BC: quotes call for it to be removed from SSRA and expressly calling for OU as a whole to discriminate against GCRN
IF Yes they are clearly calling for OU to remove all references and links to GCRN
BC But you still disagree with me that it's a threat?
IF I'm not getting

IF hung up on a word, that is their choice of what they want to do
BC *quotes* 'in the midst of this crisis when lives are at stake uni should chose to establish network with transphobic tropes' they don't identify those tropes do they
IF NO
BC but they say lives are at stake,

BC there's no rational evidence for that is there
IF some people think that there is
BC But I'm inviting you to say their isn't
IF whether or not that belief is irrational , I'm not sure if that's particularly important. That is their view

J: I'm not sure whether or not IF thinks is rational is taking us somewhere, don't know if it helps us
BC : It's relevant to the extent that you will have to consider the OU reaction to the treatment JP was receiving and what view the members of the deicisonmaking body took of

BC the material, is relevant
BC It goes on 'we question the good faith of the GCRN' so this is an express allegation that the identifiable members of the GCRN are not telling the truth about their aims
IF Well it gives the reasons of the people making that claim in the sub

BC But you understand the stated aims of the GCRN
IF Yes
BC but this claims that those aims aren't true doesn't it
IF Yes that's what bad faith means
BC What they say isn't capable of sustaining a claim that they've lied about their aims does it?
IF No
BC Claim that it's a

BC provocation
*missing*
IF I'm aware that people have different view
BC But the fact ppl disagree about what GC means precisely underlines why it's not a proper basis for those who allege bad faith. If there are two diff views on how provoking GC is, you can't reasonably

BC say that that's not what their believe in their aims
IF Well that's what they say they believe, I'm not saying I agree with it but that's their view
BC Have you seen anything said by anyone in the GCRN that you would regard in transphobic
IF No I would imagine they are

IF referring in a confused way to what appeared in college newsletter
BC the Savage Minds podcast?
IF Yes
BC But comments in that not made by the GCRN
IF No
BC We have to ensure accuracy in any challenge don't we

IF Yes that's the ac freedom principles
BC So it's not true to say GCRN members were sharing transphobic materials
IF I wouldn't be aware of anything to substantiate that
BC And the third claim [health and wellbeing claim] simply isn't true is it
IF Generally speaking but it wou

IF be called Criminology not health and wellbeing. That's their view
BC and JPk has been researched trans women in sport
IF He's not a researcher in health and wellbeing he's a philosopher . this is semantics. I'm coming back to the point that within the wider context of FoS

IF it is open to them to argue that
BC But making untrue and defamatory statements would not be within either your FoS policy or your academic freedom policy ?
IF As a general principle yes
BC so If I'm right about bad faith allegation without proper basis that would cross the

BC line wouldn't it
IF It's not quite as black and white as that. Could be that they aren't health and wellbeing researchers and that was the view that they expressed
BC isn't it clear from their statement as a whole that it's based on fundamental objection to group

BC because of members' beliefs
IF yes I would agree with that
BC and they say they will boycott all SSRA events and encourage others to do the same so they don't stop at what you say is the legitimate plan to disaffiliate, they expressly call for others to do so
IF yes they do

BC and if the all disbanded then it would make the SRA impossible to function
IF Agree it would
BC and that's what happened isn't it
IF Yes
BC so this is clearly over the line as a threat to shut down a research area of the university isn't it

IF I'm not sure it's as completely black and white as that because obviously they've all continued researching. I'm not sure how it's a problem that they threaten to disband a group they set up. If they threaten to shut down SRA research yes that's a problem for the OU yes

BC but that is an organ of the OU taking action that is discriminatory to cause harm to the OU because of protected beliefs of a group
IF Not as black and white as that, they have reformed and are carrying on their own research and the GCRN is carrying on its own research so the

IF Net result is the same
BC Is it not harmful to the OU
IF Well the GCRN is still in existence, sending emails round uni, and as far as I'm aware is the only GC network in the whole UK uni sector so it's a struggle to say this is immensely damaging to the GCRN

IF the GCRN is continuing, successful and unique so what is the effect
BC To say the GCRN has made it through is not the same as saying it had no effect on the GCRN

BC references examples
Grievance by JPk
'Spiking' of article by a member of GCRN by a journal that had agreed to publish
GCRN had to have website moved and couldn't edit it
SRA had to close early bc they were being boycotted

BC and they've had to maintain a private list and a public list because a large number of ppl are afraid to be assoc with them
IF No idea
BC You ought to have an idea

IF VC made a made significant statement is support of academic freedom and existence of GCRN
BC You agree that was the effect on the GCRNso for you to say proudly it's the only GCRN network in the country it does not negate the very disadvantageous climate it suffered after setup

IF Despite all these Hoo-Ha's etc the OU has ensure that it continues as the only one in the country
BC But it's the impact of a threatened boycott and whether that's disadvantageous - you told me a long answer about how it's survived - but can you agree that a threat to disband

BC and a call for a boycott were clearly disadvantageous to GCRN
IF Yes - significant difficulties for their GCRN caused by people acting within their wider freedom of speech I would accept that

BC But let's go back to the training slides - 'wider freedom of speech does not encompass right to discriminate or harass' -
IF - Yes
BC - and your own training from the time says look out for boycotts and threats to withdraw. So that's discrimination isn't it

IF Yes well they were certainly threatening to withdraw, yes with the GCRN yes
Bc referring to bundle

BC referring to statement again and inclusion of first paragraph of the ac freedom principles

BC quotes 'we are dissociating ourselves' so they're doing it expressly because of the beliefs of the GC members aren't they
IF Yes
BC So they cite removing website from servers

IF but you missed the bit where they say it won't affect the ac freedom of the people in the network . They believed it would cause them damage in their network
BC They are explicit in their comms with others about this *refers to bundle*

BC quotes 'we would like to stop posting GCRN asap we would be happy to carry on hosting the others so they're explicit aren't they about discrimination
IF yes
BC And you were clear that would be illegal discrimination weren't you
IF Yes and we told them they'd have to host all

IF or none
BC Because of this there was a period when the GCRN couldn't edit
IF Yes
BC So this does't cause you any difficulty. This was clearly a call for discrimination wasn't it
IF Yes but OU didn't agree to it
BC But it was an express call to discriminate
IF But we said no

Hearing having a break until 1145