Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome back to Professor Jo Phoenix v Open University. This is Part 2 of Wednesday afternoon 11/10/23. Due to start 3.20pm.

For Part 1 and all coverage go here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Abbrevs:

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
MW: Prof Marcia Wilson

[COURT RESUMES 15.22]
[There is terrible feedback. Clerk asks all to mute]

J: did you have a chance to read MW?
MW: yes
BC: let's start with the Wells statement and see if we can agree. It's very uncommon to have open letters calling for a uni to dissociate itself from a RN?

MW: yes I've not had before
BC: not a normal thing academics do
MW: not in my experience
BC: this letter citing overwhelming support for uni to do what it's asking. Agree?
MW: yes
BC: it's asking uni to do something?
MW: yes

BC: to eject GCRN from HWSRA and deny institutional home?
MW: It's asking for withdrawal of endorsement
BC: did u understand that GCRN are removed from WHSRA and all other OU websites?
MW: yes that's in letter

BC: it's requested bc GCRN members have GC beliefs. Agree?
MW: yes
BC: and allegations of bad faith being made?
MW: (pause) point to
BC does so.

BC: do u agree there's no factual foundation to suggest GCRN was not genuine in its aims of fostering research about importance of research of sexed bodies?
MW: I believe absolutely genuine bit not perspective of ppl from institution.

BC: do u agree that no reasons they give for allegations of bad faith stand up to scrutiny?
MW: (pause) its a question of perspective. It continuously came up that GCRN was about transphobia. That was widely believed.
BC: do u believe it was not transphobic?

MW: yes already stated
BC: do u agree for GCRN to be ejected bc of fund opp to its members beliefs that would be direct discrimination?
(Pause)
MW: how are u defining direct discrimination

BC: do u agree that if the uni had ejected the GCRN from SRA and refused an institutional home that would amount to less favourable treatment of its members bc of beliefs?
MW: we established it already continued

BC: if uni exceeded to demands that'd been less favourable treatment bc of beliefs? And AF
MW: yes
BC: agree this was group letter to rely of force of numbers to get uni to act unlawfully against GCRN on basis of beliefs?

MW: broadly agree
BC: clearly over the line to express their beliefs isn't it?
MW: not comfortable when u talk about discrim
BC: it's over thr line isn't it?
MW: I struggle with this over the line

BC: but there is a line. I'm going to come back to hypothetical comparator
J: ask but don't want more qs from hypotheticals
BC: I'm trying to deal with question of the line. Understand difficult to define in snappy sentence. There

does come a point the way in which a view thats peoper to express is expressed means it amounts to harassment against someone?
MW: this about network not somebody

BC: so ur taking up other point are u that reason it's not discrim as directed at network and not (lists profs)? Didn't criss the line as just mentioned the network. Is that really where we've got to in this discussion?

MW: ask u to rephrase the question coz were going round a bit
BC: You picked up what ur colleague raised and it names network not individuals. Are u saying that's the difference but to say network is fine?
MW: it's asking for removal of network?

BC: can we agree the removal of network would have removed the 6 individuals who formed the network?
MW: it would have involved everyone in network.
BC: so the 6 ppl then
MW: yes

BC: if we're seeking to see where line is crossed is it ur position that even though we've agreed I think that this is a collective letter in public including allegations of bad faith seeking to get employer to teeatb6 ppl unlawfully bc of their GC beliefs

even though all of those features apply it is nevertheless a proper way of expressing, within freedom of belief, of expressing those opposition?
MW: if ur talking about expression of protesting or saying not what we want there's other ways of doing it yes

BC: this isn't just saying we object to GC beliefs as harmful to tarns ppl uts saying we want u to discriminate and will do these activities to get u to do it. That makes it harassment doesn't it?
MW: they're requesting network withdrawn and if not they'll disband

[BC takes MW through where they will boycott]
BC: the Wells letter seeks numbers against GCRN?
MW: [reads 'someone']
BC: so we are back to individual and group are we?
MW: yes

BC: so it doesn't apply to letter bc letter is about a thing not a person?
MW: yes diff things
BC: [reads 'encourage boycott']
MW: they said they would boycott events and
BC: and disband the SRA?
MW; withdraw yes

Bc: I assume we agree FOS does not amount to behaviour that is harassment and discrim?
MW: correct
BC: was it not obvious that the Wells letter was discrim and not encompassed by FOS?
(Pause)
J: answer please
MW: repeat please

BC repeats
(Pause)
MW: I guess I'm struggling with this. No I'm not agreeing...the harassment...no no...I can't go along
BC: suggest that actually your working group didn't think carefully at the time? No careful consideration?

MW: I saw this doc 2 years ago and wasn't directly involved in Wells SRA group
BC: was there a superficial approach by working group that there's 2 sides vocal and best thing to do it strike middle course?
MW: disagree on superficial

BC: OK leave aside. Was the approach this is a difficult line to tread and best thing to do is tread middle path to avoid antagonising?
MW: your putting it simplistically. We spoke to trans and GC and tried to do right thing by both sides

BC: I'll take u through this. Do u agree this letter asks uni to dissociate itself from GcRN and support for it?
MW: yes it says draw public support
BC: do u agree Central reason for request is opposition to GC beliefs on belief they are hostile to trans, etc?

MW: I do believe the authors of letter, that's their point
BC: do u agree this letter like other one is looking to use force of numbers to sign?
MW: yes
BC: and if they'd done that it would it be harassment (paraphrased)?

MW: yes but it wasn't removed.
BC: do u agree that the KMI group said they'd reject transfer of GCRN onto diff servers?
MW: yes says in letter
BC: do u agree if working group didn't intervene they'd have treated them less favourably than SRA?
(Missed)

BC: You say [reads 'concerned about social media'] Do u recall now what happened and if Tweets were from staff?
MW: the comms team took over this. I remember seeing some tweets that were unprofessional and sometimes

on u can't tell who is sending the tweets. If it was staff I wanted clear action but handed over to comms team.
BC: is this the sort of unprofessional Tweets u referred to? [Reads 'just launched transphobic network']
MW: anything that was inciting violence

BC: U know TERF is used as an insult?
MW: as a slur. Yes that would be unprofessional. I saw some Tweets about violence and that came more to my attention.
BC: we've seen the impact on JP. Let's look at wider impact.

BC: this is an email sent to you and Rob Macy ? Remind who he is?
MW: relations manager something like that
BC: [reads 'we see article from Critic' 'not best time to highlight JP'] This is an example of how culture of fear and

its implications work isn't it. Even on article not about gender ppl at uni won't even highlight JP work on another subject. Consistent ur experience of uni at this time?
MW: I think... you know...I'm not in first faculty but it was still highlight

there. IF highlight JP work and was aware it would cause upset bit said something we have to do
BC: that wasn't my question. That was before GCRN. My q is Is this not indicati of culture in uni at this time that backlash against GCRN that this person is contemplating not putting

JP in a newsletter?
MW: erm...I...I.. I don't recall seeing this. Re the email then if
J: question was whether it was indicative
MW: kind of...I really don't know.

BC: You thought if we do this the backlash opposed to her views, it will be too much?
MW: no the decision about not taking down letters was about ppl having right to protest.
BC: is that atmos/culture

(Missed)
[Judge enquires about time and how many more questions. JM joins convo. Cannot hear. There's laughter.]

BC: these statements didn't include a clear statement that attempts to isolate harrass and exclude GCRN and members would not be tolerated?

[MW is saying different people write the statements]
BC: did u play a part in it?
MW: with a number of people.
BC: this Statement on 18th explains AF but the only explicit support is to affirm support for trans students.

Which implies they're the ones ur trying to appease. Fair?
MW: there was a lot of complaints from transgender students and colleagues and msg was this is an inclusive institution. That last para where we say [reads] we haven't endorsed the network. It's a group of

academics that hold that perspective.
BC: yes bit you'd also had number of co plants from JP. Your affirming support to TG colleagues and students but don't say for GC colleagues and students?

MW: could have been strengthened by that
BC: do u agree the same points apply to June 24 and Nov 10 statement?
[Confusion over statement dates]
MW: I'd say the statements could have been strengthened

BC: do u agree it was hostility against RN and wish not to provoke that which influenced the lack of fulsome support for GC side of debate?
MW: (pause) Im noy sure. Reason I'm thinking is going back to volume of comainst received. Not sure. Not sure. Do agree could have been

strengthened by adding GCRN
BC: final q. Can you help us as to why was a statement made on Nov 10 at all?
MW: (pause. Paper shuffling) yes I think this is...I'll just finish reading...this is in response with Prof Kev S did to bring both sides together

and VC asked me to move forward on that. We met with colleagues who were affected by the launch of GCRN and this was an update.
BC: all my questions
J: Thank you BC

[The line has gone to a dull feedback sound, not sure if it has ended. Others in court chat are saying the same]

[I have been informed in the chat box that the line has been turned off while the panel deliberate]

P: MW we had a comment that with all media attention, twitter, JP was told just to tone it down, to stay off line and comms dept would take over.

Was anyone else told to just remove themselves and comms taken over?
MW: don't recall anyone else. Saw email to JP and it was bc it was so stressful. Secretary said it will be monitored on ur behalf so she wouldn't have to see. She took him up

on offer. Don't know if anyone else in GCRN.
J: asking about any other re uni, any on gender affirming side?
MW: I don't know
J: Those are our questions
JM: want to know context of that. Can u explain why she was told to stay off

MW: it was a suggestion. Stressful time. Secretary suggested stay off SM so she didn't have to see trolling and negative comments and comms team would take over. Suggestion it wasn't 'stay off SM'.

JM: (hard to hear) [one question. asking about Peter Keogh...'force of numbers'phrase and asking if correct, MW agrees and JM ends]

J: Thank you MW you are released.

[They're discussing timetable and timings for future witnesses.]

Court resumes 10am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp please unroll