Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon.

We expect the afternoon hearing in the case at Employment Tribunal of Jo Phoenix v Open University to begin at 2.15pm.

Abbreviations:
JP = Jo Phoenix, claimant
BC = Ben Cooper KC counsel for JP
OU = Open University, respondent
JM = Jane Mulcahy KC, counsel for OU

J = the Judge
P = either of the two panel members sitting with the Judge

You can read a full list of the abbreviates we use, and the previous sessions of the hearing, at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

This afternoon further witness for the OU will be cross-examined by BC. We are expecting to hear from:
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History

JP has today published her witness statement and that of Professor Sarah Earle, who gave evidence at the start of the week; we hope to add these to our Substack page shortly.

[Hearing resumes]

[next witness is PK. JM takes him through confirming witness statement and affirming to tell T whole T and nothing BT. One correction to WS - for "VCR" read "VCE" = Vice Chancellor's Executive]

BC: In WS you say you are not hostile to those with gender critical beliefs . You pointedly don't say not hostile to them expressing them.
PK: Am not hostile to expressing, but it depends how.

BC: [bundle ref] Notes of interview you gave re JP grievance. Were asked for your perspective on findings in Forstater case. You response was that Forstater could be wrong?

PK: Am not legal expert but my understanding was that at that time the claimant had leave to appeal, so at that time my sense was that there was still legal uncertainty, so am expressing surprise that OU esp Prof Earle went ahead with the GCRN

BC: I say you are post-revising, at the time you were saying you disagreed with Forstater decision.
PK: Not relevant what I think of it, and no am not revising.

BC: Your position was, you disagreed with Forstater.
PK: No, was expressing the then uncertainty.

BC [bundle ref] This is letter you and others wrote, Wells faculty, to VCE. A private letter.
PK: Well private to faculty and VC, no intention to make public.

BC: A letter to VCE is the proper way to get university to do something isn't it. [phone rang, missed a bit]

BC: Fact of making the letter public -
PK: The letter, or a letter?
J : *A* letter
PK: can have many intentions doing that, eg, increase engagement or, to make a position clear.

BC: To the world?
PK: Hard to say hypothetically.
BC: We will come to specifics but hypothetical also useful.

BC: You've said you don't have a problem with people expressing gender critical views.
PK: Agree, but certain ways of expressing could be problem.

BC: [reading letter] you write of people *holding* views. You are an academic and weigh words carefully
PK: Yes
BC: You go on, that expressing in hostile degrading way not OK. So far so good.

BC: You then go on [reads then summarises] you are saying that holding is OK, expressing is OK, but, university must not support.

PK: Am making distinction. For example was raised Catholic - it's not necessary for university to support me in that, unless I was researching Catholicism.
BC: No, you are saying OU *should not* provide research infrastructure to GC belief.

PK: [reads the paragraph]
BC: This is nonsense - does OU require your research to be entirely robust?
PK: Peer review publishing
BC: Not all output is peer reviewed
PK: No but some is.

BC: Back to my Q - you are saying here, or are you not, saying that OU is not obliged to provide research infrastructure to GC research?
PK: If I as a Catholic wanted to research angels on a pin, OU not obliged to give infrastructure for that.

BC: If you were theology professor?
PK: But not because of my beliefs. University not obliged to support research re beliefs

PK: Uni infrastructure is based on the *research* that is done, not on the beliefs underpinning it.
J: I do not understand the answer well. You reiterate difference between belief and research. Am trying to understand, in a new area, how does that argument fit in?

PK: Good Q, thank you J. When new areas emerge, they tend to emerge from older traditions, draw on histories and traditions of those areas. GCRN - research sexed bodies - is of course relevant.

PK: But in this letter we're trying to draw distinction between beliefs, and research done. My issue was not with there being a GCRN at OU, it was with the people and methods of this one.

BC: Letter says, don't give them a platform.
PK: No, am saying don't give beliefs a platform.
BC: OU did not have a choice. Within the law, must support all research equally.

PK: Did not have to give platform
BC: Yes, they did. Partic if re a protected belief
PK: No not relevant

BC: If *you* set up a RN you would expect the platform. If you were told that because of a protected belief you could not, that would be discrimination.
PK yes it would.

BC: If your objection was the *way* it had done something, that is not a reason to say remove the platform.

PK: Have never said, well maybe once, that GC research should not have a platform. If group members behave in a way that makes colleagues' work hard / impossible then uni should investigate and be concerned.

BC: [bundle ref] Article by Jon Pike [JPk] Feb 2021. Promoted on OU news website.
PK: Yes
BC: About a full peer-reviewed article also by JPk re World Rugby decision that TW could not play in women's rugby.

BC: "The Conversation" is for academics to intro and summarise their work.
PK: Yes
BC: JPk describes his rejection of "a balancing approach". He describes using "lexical" instead - one step at a time.

BC: Says that first step was "safe"; then within the safe options consider "fair"; then after that be as inclusive as possible. He cites research by scientists re TW physiology; and notes that you never get to step 3 inclusive bcs male advantage fails "safe" step.

BC: THis is a proper academic ariticle and argument.
PK: Yes it is, have not read for quite a while but yes.