Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon on Wednesday 11/10/23 & welcome back to the case of Professor Jo Phoenix vs Open University. We expect evidence from Prof. Ian Fribbance from OU to continue being examined.
2pm start

More info, abrrevs and coverage here:

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Abbreviations

J - Employment Judge Young
P - One of two panel members with her

JP - Prof Jo Phoenix
BC - Ben Cooper KC, JP Counsel
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, OU Counsel
IF - Professor Ian Fribbance, OU

Other abbreviations:

CCJS - 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

A comprehensive list of abbreviations can be found here on our substack:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

[COURT RESUMES 14:02]

J: Good afternoon everyone. I have majority of Qs but some from P
P: U mentioned in ur WS, u talked about JP joined in 2016 and 2 depts merged into 1?
IF: 2 faculties

IF: I became interim Dean of new faculty, some structure has slightly changed. So JP's dept of social policy and criminal ology would have been I social sciences.
P: Had merger occurred when JP joined?
IF: merger happened Aug 1. Think she joined before

(Pause)
J: first Q is straight forward. You didn't tell us how big the RRSH group was?
IF: no idea. Small number but don't know.
J: Thank u. This Q is broken up. You were given Islamic analogy and u added to definition BC provided u. U also said in ur experience u had other

groups where controversies happened. Mentioned Israel and Palestine. in that scenario, was a working group set up there?
IF: no was much lower level and smaller issues (he lists)
J: sounds that this partic issue was the most controversial u had experienced?
IF: yes

J: the answer might be self Explanatory. When issue arose u had some notice but not enough Intel but JP gave u a heads up. When the GCRN was launched, what was the Uni's plan of action to deal with that scenario?

IF: do u mean did we have a plan in advance?
J: yes
IF: no. Various contingency plans
J: when RN was launched, u received emails from upset students bit also upset email from JP. Between dates in June did the uni have any plan of action of how to deal with upset re GCRN?

IF: I discussed that from last session. Without looking back, we'd set up the working group, had myself and Prof Eilson and Karen Mallory, Prof KevinS, we certainly had members from the comms team as we were dealing with Publuc relations. We had members from uni secretary's

Office and fairly quickly engaged with lawyers soon after. Other aspect I discussed was statement circular of VC after launch then next days later.
J: specifically asking: the fallout from consequences re members of GCRN,was there a plan for that?
IF: not before 24th

J: Thank you.
P: I'm just trying to find something in the WS ( hard to hear). About social media
IF: yes he's responsible for social media channels and he took wider responsibility for what was going on on SM

P: picking up J question. Formal support. Just checking we have time right with GCRN themselves. In relation to Gender equality (missed), was there anything put in place for them as a formal response?
IF: no not at that stage

J: follow up question which I'd never normally do. You answered 'not formally at that stage'. Was there one at a later stage?
IF: I don't think anything was put in place for either group. Various things were offered to some individuals, eg, 1 person from each side was offered

Counselling. Think that was a wider offer to both sides. Can't think of anything else.
J: end of questions. And That *is* the end of my (laughter) u are released.
J: next witness Professor Wilson

[Next witness is Prof. Marcia Wilson ( MW)]
JM: Good afternoon MW.

[JM takes MW through affirmation and confirms signature on witness statement]

BC: good afternoon. Much of ur involvement was alongside IF?
MW: yes
BC: I'll not repeat everything from him. Core things. Will start at ur awareness of sensitivities of sex and gender at the time of launch of GCRN

BC: and about ur involvement in LGBT History month and newsletter. Let's look at 830 please. Do u recall JP sending this email to u setting out concerns in newsletter. She explained background of sensitivities?
MW: yes
BC: [reads]

BC: were u familiar to sensitivities?
MW: yes
BC: prior to launch of GCRN u discussed it?
MW: yes
BC: JP sets out complaints against JPk, etc, this was a new area to u and u became aware at this point?
MW: absolutely

BC: we can see hear that by 24 May u had read the RR and recognised impact foing forward?
MW: it's lengthy so wanted to read in detail before I replied.
BC: understood so u read in the following days?
MW: yes

BC: [looking up RR] I apologise the doc has been split. Sorry.
MW: that's all right
[Bundle sorting]

BC: para 19, Reindorf sets out evidence she'd heard about attitudes to GC views and effects [reads 'some fear for jobs and relationships' ' culture of fear'] By the time u read the report were u familiar with similar dynamic at OU?
MW: I did after having convo with JP

BC: we'll come to that. Stepping back for a moment. Did u understand OU obligations to academic freedom to include that sort of culture of fear didn't develop?
MW: (pause) yeh. With AF we often talk about purpose of university. Ppl with differing views are free to

research as long as its legal.
BC: it means also ppl feel able to engage in their research and not inhibited by culture of fear
MW: yes want ppl to do their job with high level of competency.

BC: if u saw conduct likely to inhibit GC perspective that would be conduct u would need to tackle?
MW: absolutely. When this became apparent I'm sure I reached out to JP and asked how I could support.
BC: U did.

[Bundle business]
BC: email here from u to JP in June [reads 'I'm listening savage minds podcast' 'would like to hear how uni can support u'] That's the email ur talking about re support?
MW: yes

BC: U listed to podcast. Sounds like u found it interesting
MW: yes
BC: nothing discrim about it (paraphrase)
MW: didn't listen to it all.
BC: U talk about some comments in the interview. Do u recall them?
MW: yes I'd heard about comments in podcast.

BC: how did u hear them?
MW: informal convo with colleague. I think. I didn't listen to it all.
BC: do u see at the top there's JP talking [reads 'culture of inclusion'] So there was a bit in podcast where JP got into a tangle and asked for it to be added. Do u remember?

MW: no it was years ago.
BC: do you see [reads 'please edit this out'] So another place she asked for it to be edited?
MW: yeh
BC: as part of WG u objected to parts of podcast re newsletter and then

GCRN didn't you? First u say no apology needed for podcast and then no need to remove links?
MW: correct
BC: U ended up meeting with JP in June and refer to ur handwritten notes there [finding in bundle]

BC: the pic is slightly cut off but we can see JP told you bait culture of fear?
MW: correct
BC: shed told u there'd been complaints to her in Sunday Times?
MW: yes
BC: and silencing of her research saying it was unfair and unsafe?
Mw: yes

BC: I don't know what safety and inclusion means, do you remember?
MW: no
BC: then full entry GCRN, so June 4, as EDI Dean she was intending of setting up GCRN.
MW: yes it was important for JP and I to meet so yes she outlined some of

the issues.
BC: this was ur opp to work out what support she needed?
MW: yeh to cont doing her research
BC: She apologised for what was ro become and u didn't appreciate the scale of what was to come?

BC: yes thought there'd be a mirror problem in faculty. I didn't realise the depth of feeling, just the scale.
BC: sounds at though JP wasn't putting it in the scale of what was to come either.
(Missed)
MW: I didn't think there'd be a big issue.

BC: You've not been here and not heard that JP has had criticism of not informing ppl.
(Missed)
MW: it didn't register that this was gonna be something incredibly significant.

BC: so when launch did come on June 16 the reaction struck u as signif?
MW: not immediately. Couple of emails but only as time went on. 72 hours, then letters, a lot of emails to VC forwarded to me. Overwhelming.
BC: from staff or students?

MW: both
BC: what volume are we talking about? Tens 100s 1000s?
MW: close to 100
BC: were most of those to effect that thos was transphovic network and should shut down?
MW: there were a number of emails protesting about launch of GCRN, also supportive ones but fewer.

BC: this is day after the launch. JP fairly quickly made u aware that there were academics in uni targeting her and colleagues. She told u quickly?
MW: yes
BC: she also indicated quickly she thought uni had obligation to stop those campaigns of complaints?
MW: yes she did

BC: she wrote a fuller email on morning of 18 June. She highlighted 5 or so lines of screenshot and then she characterises this is targeted campaign against centre exactly like was used at Essex.

BC: Look at screenshots. Your response you say [reads " just checking up on u"] You appreciated she was distressed?
MW: yes saw msgs and screenshot on twitter.
BC: You say sorry you've received those and mean those attached?
MW: probably

BC: U agree they were upsetting and unpleasant msgs?
MW: yes
BC: there's a tweet from LD for gathering feedback on GCRN. It's obviously going to be upsetting and distressing to find colleague criticising your network and beliefs?

MW: don't think it's this msg I was concerned about. The ones from June 16. I think it's fine to say 'a network has been launched, have ur say'

MW: the uni unheld AF and kept network open and no request of closure.
BC: 2 diff things. Take in stages. We can agree just bc someone has a view and possible to express reasonably doesn't mean it's in AF in a way that amounts to harassment and discrim?
MW: yes

BC: can we agree that for someone to engage in a public call, collective call, asking the uni to do something unlawful bc of someone PC, that that is not acceptable exercise of FOS?
MW: not clear cut like that as AF on other side.

BC If we can always say that then there'd never be anything that amounts to harassment can it? Are u saying it can be within AF for someone to publicly call for uni to do something unlawful bc of someone's PCs?

[JM objecting to theoretical question. Cannot hear well. There's laughter.]
J: I understand what ur saying and am keen for BC to put actual situ and not theoretical.
BC: let's test propositions by the Wells Statement.

BC: I have eye on time Judge
J: Yes but ask question first.
BC: Have u reread this recently?
MW: remember seeing it but not I'm my bundle
J: in which case we'll break now and give time for MW to read. Sorry to set homework for the break.

[Bundle sorting]

[Bundle confusion]
J: all right. Slightly longer to give MW some time so 3.20.

[Court adjourned until 3.20pm]

@threadreaderapp please unroll