Thread by @tribunaltweets

Jo Phoenix vs OU due to resume 1120
Next Witness Kevin Shakesheff, OU Pro-Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation
BC- Ben Cooper Counsel for JP
JP - Jo Phoenix
J - Judge
P - Panel member(s)
JM - Jane Mulcahy Counsel for OU

Hearing has not yet resumed. BC to examine Kevin Shakesheff (KS)
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network
All other abbreviations on Tribunal Tweets substack
tribunaltweets.substack.com

Hearing is resuming

Correction: Further questions to CW from panel
P- we've heard there were a lot of requests from JP to take down the open letter. Do you know when the letter was taken down?
CW: No. For us the important thing was to deliver it and after that I found it quite dismaying generally

CW: We'd done our bit and I didn't want to join the online argument
P: Do you know why it was taken down
CW: No idea
P or J asking about witness statement par 17

P or J : You talk about your concern over signing ST letter - you say 'the right to assign gender to students in spite of students' wishes'
CW Highlighting my concern they were claiming that right
P or J : what right are you referring to
CW: that the Uni has duty to respect self

CW: identification of students' gender. Also concerned with Public Sector Equality Duty. Uni should have been going beyond mere compliance to overtly ensure equality. That was my state of mind at the time.
Witness CW is released

Professor Kevin Shakesheff (KS) called to witness stand
KS sworn
JM: Two clarifications are needed in witness statement
KS affirms witness statement

JM : we have heard about Health and Wellbeing SRA and its closure. We have heard it closed early. Can you tell us about the change from SRA to OSC
KS: The Ou opened 5 strategic research areas in 2015 - they were time limited and originally due to close around 2021 - I had just

KS : been appointed to pro VC job and I asked for an extension - I wanted there to be an evolution to the new strategy - some time between June and Xmas 2021 that activities in the SRA moved over to the new OSC. It didn't feel like closure, more like a moving over

JM : Clarifies 2021 or 2022?
KS : Sorry 2022
KM : Asks about working group and the joining of Susan Stewart. Why did you want to involve her?
KS: She's a member of VC executive, had a lot of personal knowledge about GC theory, had made contributions about benefits of

research in GC perspectives
BC: When exactly did susan Stewart (SS) join?
KS: Between aug Se[pt 2021 best guess
BC: So Health and Wellbeing SRA - you don't dispute it was closed earlier than expected by Sarah earle
KS: I don't dispute, but closure was not in the gift of Earle, I

KS: don't recall exact detail of timing

We have lost audio

KS: don't recall exact detail of timing

Lost audio

KS: I wasn't at any events and cant recall attendance. there were a lot of meetings about the new strategy
BC: refers to Earle statement and call for boycott. Do you dispute there was a boycott of SRA events
KS: Do't know if

KS: reason for low attendance was written in any statement. I was putting a lot of effort into putting meetings across the Uni
BC - So in June 2021 because you were going to be doing a new strategy in 2nd half 2022 then that would be a reason for ppl not to attend the usual

BC events of the SRA?
KS: That's possible
BC: That's not reasonable is it
KS: there were lots of opportunities to discuss research
BC: You are not being honest you are seeking to make a case
KS: You are asking me to be certain about cause of drop off
BC: no I'm asking if there's

BC any reason to doubt that there was a drop off in attendance and you gave me a reason why they might not turn up
KS You're asking me for reasons why ppl didn't turn up for events, how can I know (paraphrase)
BC No I'm asking if there WAS a drop off in attendance
- the other

BC: events went ahead normally didn't they?
KS: I don't know
BC: Q about closure of H and W SRA
KS: I don't know
BC: So was she not being truthful in this par?
KS : I don't know
BC You understand duty of academic freedom
KS Yes

BC You know it's not just to allow it but to foster a culture where it's encouraged including unpopular views
KS Yes
BC You know one of things that can inhibit views is a prevailing culture in which views are met with a significant hostile reaction?
KS Yes
BC Had you read

BC Reindorf report before GCRN launched?
KS: Yes it was in that period
BC: So before or shortly after?
KS: Yes
BC *refers to bundle*

BC: *quotes RR conclusions*- she refers to 'evidence of culture of fear among staff which hold GC views - this may also indicate academic freedom being inhibited - uni should foster good relations' so you were aware a culture of fear could form in that way were you?

KS: Depends on definition of culture of fear but I would agree broadly
BC: And you knew Uni duty to Ac freedom meant uni should take steps to address culture of fear?
KS: Yes
BC: you also knew of duty not to discriminate against academics with GC beliefs?
KS asks for clarity on

KS GC beliefs
BC: Sex is binary, immutable and more important than gender (paraphrase) - aware of duty not to discriminate against those holding this view?
KS Yes

BC: You were asked if anything needed to be done about Savage Minds pod and response on website
- you respond you have decided not to remove podcast and that they must treat GC network material the same as any other network material - that's because you understand it would be

BC discrimination
KS yws
BC and SM pod not found transphobic?
KS We considered a number of things with SM podcast and GC research network was clearly set up to be a network for anyone with any views, to come together, to network together. I had a concern that some of lang in podc

KS Could be off-putting to non - GC ppl who are new to the field
BC: Bu there was no intent to shut down any other research was there?
KS It could inhibit people from taking part who had different views, but it wasn't looking to stop them, no

BC : Do you agree that another issue was the GCRN application to use OU logo on name and media handle
KS : Yes
BC: You applied principle that we should treat this network like any other so agreed?
KS : Yes
BC Because u understood not to do so would be discriminatory?

KS : Yes
BC : They weren't aware of need to request permission did you know that?
KS: No
BC: So they were told of need to apply , they immediately stopped using it and put in applications?
KS: Not aware of details
BC: ultimately you confirmed they could use logo
KS : Yes

BC: Do you recall website for GCRN you and working group discussed how to deal with that? *refers to email from Dave Hall* quotes 'n my view they shouldn't be treated different' - so view of working group was that there should be equal treatment?

KS: Yes the H and W SRA should be treated like all other SRAs
BC: And the GCRN should be treated same as other networks?
KS : Yes

BC quotes email from KS: 'v imp that no action is taken to remove GCRN from server' - this is bc you knew it would be discriminatory ?
KS: No. I had a different concern. I felt KMI was the wrong host within the university for the H and W SRA, I also knew all the SRAs would

KS: be closing and wanted them too be gathered in a resource under my control under the new strategy
BC moving on
BC: refers to KMI statement 'we want to stop hosting GCRN network but carry on hosting rest of SRA - that was a discriminatory proposal wasn't it?
KS: Not sure I

KS: agree. KMI were not the right structure to be dealing with that, dealing with ppl external to the university. Disagree they were proposing less favourable treatment.
BC: If it's only the GCRN has to go thru the mechanics of shifting websites then that's discriminatory isn't

BC: it?
KS: Don't agree, not extra work for the GCRN, all don't by technical people?
BC: Were you truthful in your answer when u suggested SRA as a whole should be housed elsewhere. You were saying it's very imp we don't take any action re: removal - that is about the

BC: issues around academic freedom and not discriminating against GCRN?
KS: No it was very important they had the right website (?) But also important for ac freedom.

BC: They were threatening to go ahead and remove GCRN content for their servers while they waited for another host, weren't they? They were threatening to discriminate and that's what you were addressing isn't it?
KS: Certainly what's described is something I didn't want to happe

BC: Because it would have been discrimination
KS: It would have removed access from the website
BC: And you didn't want them to do something that was discriminatory?
KS: No my motivation was that they would be in the new home with the other SRA
BC: The outcome would be that

BC: that the GCRN wouldn't have had a home if that had gone ahead wouldn't it?
..
BC: quotes 'in terms of practical consequences it meant GCRN could not make changes to website for four weeks' 'content to be reviewed after migration' - so the message

BC Was that there'd be four weeks when GCRN could make minimal changes to website
KS: That's what I objected to and didn't want to happen
BC: JP drew your attention to this on July 5 didn't she
KS: Yes
BC: And you raised in with 'Jake/Anna' - reply is that content changes

BC Would be a few days maximum yes?
KS: That's where I say a few days will be ok
BC Yes. *quotes further email from tech team on risk to content with migration*

BC: So there was restriction despite what you said, wasn't there?
KS: There was a small amount of activity which maybe wouldn't be able to be performed
BC: Did you understand OU also had responsibility to stop its employees harassing or discriminating against GC ppl?
KS: Yes

BC refers to KS witness statement
BC: quotes 'you say uni should issue guidance on how debate should take place' - so you agree that one thing u need to do after GCRN was issue clear guidance about that?
KS: So that's a sentence that's come from Senate

KS: - it was going to take time to develop new ideas and have discussions with ppl including the GCRN.
BC: Do you agree you didn't issue clear guidelines on what needed to be done on debating and contesting these issues?
KS: I'm just gonna think about that if I may

KS: I don't know the details *BC referring to bundle*
BC quotes senate minutes on defending academic freedom
BC: Do you agree that you didn't get round to issuing clear guidance?
KS: Can't remember being personally involved in any guidance, I don' remember signing any off, I

KS: Don't know if any policies were updated around the university
BC: Do you agree the focus is on gender critical beliefs when minutes talk about presenting arguments in ways that are not hostile or degrading, isn't it?
KS: Dont' agree
BC: Do we agree that any attempt to

BC : Exclude on basis of belief is impermissible?
KS: Yes
BC And you got that message from GCRN?.
KS: don't remember
BC: You've agreed with proposition. Don't you agree it would be helpful to put that out at this time

BC Don't you agree it would be right to put out advice not to isolate exclude or make anyone unwelcome would be impermissible either for GC beliefs or trans beliefs
KS: That would be a useful statement
BC: You knew there was a lot of sm activity after GCRN launch and you knew a

BC: lot of it was very hostile?
KS: Certainly there was hostility to GCRN, didn't know detail
BC: You knew some members were very upset by it?
KS: Didn't know all of the members but I knew some of them were distressed

BC: quotes email to KS from Sara Earle 17 June day after GCRN launch 'colleagues distressed, JP has been in tears, she has been threatened with violence' - so you knew she was experiencing sm response as harassment and was very upset by its
KS: Yes
BC: You knew you should

BC: make your response in that context?
KS: Yes
BC: You knew that Open letter was being launched into that environment
KS: I don't know if they were aware of it, don't know what their social media is
BC: Insofar as you judge likely effect on JP you must have understood context bc

BC: it was made clear to you ?
KS: Yes
BC: *refers to statement from KMI about website* - you were asked for comment?
KS: Yes
BC

BC: in that statement it says KMI dissociate from GCRN because they don't support or condone their views - that's plainly saying they oppose those views?
KS: No bc the GCRN was set up to discuss GC views. So the GCRN doesn't have a position except that ppl can come together

KS: and talk. It's not promoting any views.
BC: But the email says KMI is dissociating themselves because of views?
KS: Disagree
BC: So what do you understand the views referred to in the email to be? if not GC belief?
KS: The GCRN is not exclusively ppl with GC beliefs

J intervenes
J: He's not asking you what you think of the network. He's asking you what you thought KMI meant in the email.
KS: I think they had the same definition of the GCRN fo welcoming people with all views.
BC: I'm not disagreeing with you what the position is as a

BC: of fact which is that the GC network would not discriminate...I'm asking you
J interments : I think we have the answer
BC: Although they make reference to ac freedom they were clearly signalling that they disapproved of the network
KS: I disagree I don't see that in the text

BC And they were saying we want to treat them differently and they were clearly saying that to the world
KS But they were reassuring about continued web presence

BC: On any view this statement was sending a message to the world that the GCRN was not welcome, wasn't it
KS: I don't agree bc the continuity of the GCRN presence as part of the OU was going to continue
BC: Your reaction is simply to say 'well go ahead I won't stop you'

KS: My reaction is that it's best for GCRN and uni as who to maintain stable web presence
BC: You mistake me, I'm talking about the statement that they were going to issue, you said go ahead
KS: No I said I would go back to them if there was a problem and I did not go back to

KS: him because the working group felt it could go out
BC: *missed question sorry*
BC: You tell us in your WS about a meeting with them before they put out this statement so you must have been aware they were planning to do so. We can see who it was forwarded to

KS: I cannot remember the timing of my meeting and the statements
BC refers to timings - meetings 29th, statement on 30th so you must have been aware of what they were proposing when you had that meeting with them
KS Don't remember if I was aware
BC: Had you seen draft?

KS: I don't remember
BC: It would be extraordinary if you weren't - the working group must have been aware you were meeting the RSSHs - so it would be astonishing if you hadn't shared the information. You can't recall whether they did?
KS: I can't remember
BC: The Wells/RSSH

BC: statement - you must have known of it when you met with them on the 29th, if it was published on the 24th
KS: So the date on the letter is 24th, I don't know when I read or received it
BC: |Extraordinary if you didn't know of it five days later
KS: Don't know - weekends

BC: it was a call to discriminate against GCRN and its members wasn't it
KS: Depends on reasons. Could have been procedural reasons which would not be discriminatory, it would be technical. So I don't know exactly the motivation for the request.
BC: if it was at least in part due

BC: to views, that would be discriminatory?
KS: But the GCRN didn't have any views
BC: But isn't it obvious from the reaction that everyone perceived the members of the GCRN to have GC views?
KS: Don't know, there's a lot in the emails
BC: And there's a call for a boycott of

BC: SRA bc of its connection to GCRN?
KS: Yes
BC: And your reaction is to say you aren't going to stop them withdrawing
KS: It wasn't a matter of consequence to me that they were disbanding
BC: But they were threatening a boycott and to withdraw. But you had the power to

BC: say no because that would be discriminatory and harassment
KS: But it's a voluntary network, it's not for me to tell them to keep going
BC: But those were attempts to isolate, exclude and make people feel not welcome weren't they?
KS: There were academic experts which

KS were making academic points within the field, I didn't agree with them
BC: They're not just saying we have academic differences, they're saying they will boycott and withdraw, and THEY are clear attempts to isolate and exclude aren't they?
KS: That's a long point

RS: do you not agree that what they were calling to happen was an attempt to isolate exclude and make members of the GCRN feel unwelcome
RS: Members of the GCRN could be anybody
BC: AT this point it's six people - everybody dknows that
RS: I didn't know that
BC: They had a

BC: Website with their pics on
KS: I didn't know those were the only members
BC: I will address in subs the quality of your evidence
BC: I put it to you you were not fully considering impact on GCRN members
KS: I wanted GCRN to be an open continuing network and supported that

BC: The attitude - that you were focussed on possibility of harm caused by GCRN to reputation of university - and not on harm TO the members - affected your response and public statements didn't it
KS: I disagree

BC: 10 Nov email: quotes VC finding that existence of GCRN is compatible with ac freedom - it omits that GCRN found response to their launch to be extremely distressing
KS: Agree
BC: That's bc u focussed all the way thru on the possibly of harm by the GCRN and not harm TO them

Lost audio

Break for lunch: back at 2pm 1400h
@threadreaderapp please unroll