Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to the second part of the morning session of Jo Phoenix's case at Employment Tribunal v Open University. After the break Ben Cooper KC (for Jo Phoenix) will continue questioning of Deborah Drake of the OU.

All abbreviations and previous sessions are on our Substack page tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

We expect the hearing to resume at 12:50

[we resume]

J: we will break at 1 for lunch. Meanwhile we carry on with Dr Drake

BC: [bundle ref] transcript of JP talk at WPUK april 2019. You see here she says conf cancelled bcs RG deemed too dangerous to associate with - that activists refused to share platform - that disruption was threatened. All accurate?
DD: don't think anyone said 'dangerous'

BC: Other than that word. We don't have anything from those ppl so we don't know their words
DD: that's so yes
BC: JP account is accurate isn't it.
DD: Steve was handling so I don't know the whole range of reasons.

BC: You are quibbling at edges. JP account is true isn't it
DD: partially true
BC: and she's entitled to say it, and give her view it's interferences with AF?
DD: only part of story -
BC: Not my Q. Is she entitled to say it?
DD: Yes to give her view, which I don't agree with

BC: [ref] you say Louise Westmarland upset by JP comments there
DD: Yes my impression she was upset
BC [ref] emails DD, LW, ST about this - upshot is you agreed LW wd speak to JP about it.
DD: my recollection is LW upset so she shd speak to JP directlry

BC: You're not saying "talks to JP with our joint views", you're saying bcs LW upset
DD: yes
BC: Not about "having a word"
DD: Yes - just to let JP know that LW upset, LW and some other ppl

BC: [ref] letter to Sunday Times signed by JP, did you read at the time
DD: yes
BC: entirely OK and appropriate letter for JP to sign.
DD: I had some problems with it. Felt that OU was not doing trans awareness training - was rolled up in general diversity.

DD: Also didn't know whether anti-scientific things in OU policies. So found letter a problem because might mean OU guilty re these allegations and I didn't think it was. And then it's talking about pronouns and 2 members of dept wd have found difficult, which is OK - -

DD -- but wd have been helpful to have discussed in advance, and wd have been nice to have in letter about "no disrespect to transgender colleagues." So I was upset.

BC: But letter is about damaging effect of stonewall on AF.
DD: Yes when I went back and re-read. But was initially upset.

BC: Doesn't say in letter ppl won't use pronouns.
DD: No but some people *require* pronouns to be comfortable in workplace, and 2 members of my staff were upset.

BC: Will rephrase. Were you aware there is a debate re pronoun use which is not settled?
DD not sure. Not really.
BC: Letter is not talking about specifics re students. Talking about the overall debate. Not saying won't use.

DD: No, it's not, the latter. But 2 people felt, felt it could be read as not respectful of people's pronouns.
BC: We agreed earlier that just bcs someone upset, not a reason academic cannot say a thing
DD yes

BC: My original Q was, do you agree it was an appropriate letter for JP to sign as an academic.
DD: Not sure about "appropriate". She was free to sign ofc.
BC: within her AF and FoS
DD: Yes

BC: She shd not suffer detriment
DD: Yes - no official detriment
BC: never mind official. You accept you had duty to defend her AF in this
DD: I had no control how other people reacted.
BC: Indeed not.

BC [ref] Dr Downes wrote to you re the Times letter. Says cd impact Stonewall equality index. Says oversteps mark. Do you agree with that?
DD: Did not take view on that. Wanted to discuss more widely to assess in detail
BC: Clear in your reply that you or LW will discuss with JP

BC [reads bit out] you say discuss with LW, IF, will with JP when she's back from sick leave.
DD: Was thinking JP should know colleagues upset.

BC: Is that not an implicit way of saying "don't do this"?
DD: No - just that people should know
BC: Was on LW list to discuss with JP - you added it.
DD don't think I did

BC: You also discussed with CW
DD: Yes
BC: so this is not an impulsive email
DD: It kind of was, it was still fresh, I was still a bit upset - exasperated really, not so much JP position but the way it was done.

BC: what do you mean?
DD: No notice
BC: But ppl don't have to run everything past you
DD: No but there are 2 trans ppl in dept
BC: You are saying this issue must be treated differently from anything else
DD: Was thinking duty of care. And being courteous.

BC: You say in WS you consulted CW bcs union experence, resolving conflict. You saw conflict here.
DD: Yes
BC: You wrote bcs you knew he'd agree with you in disparaging JP views
DD: No I was looking how to find ground to resolve things btwn 3 ppl in the deparment.

DD: I was upset by the letter so looking to talk to CW bcs might have experience of the issue in other contexts.
BC: That's not what your WS says.
DD: Well the union, that's how I know CW, that's our connection.

DD: I was exasperated in the moment and looking back wd not have written it perhaps.
BC: You say to CW you are reachign out for solidarity.
BC: Bcs you knew CW wd agree with you, against JP.

BC: You talk of ppl who have T ppl in depts, NB people. You are talking as if the times letter is inherently harmful,
DD: Not harmful. But not respecting identity.

BC: You call it problematic and scary.
DD: well not respecting colleagues
BC: You are saying JP was being wilfully disrespectful.
DD: Well possibly. About pronouns things.

BC: But we've agreed your job is to faciltitate all your colleagues expressing their views. Must not treat JP differently.
DD: JP views cd have inhibited other colleagues expressing theirs by being disrespectful
BC: But that is not going to happen is it.

DD: There had already been offence taken.
BC: But we have already agreed that offence-taken is not a good reason.
DD: But what JP said cd have inhibited others.
BC: How could it have?
DD: But it didn't say in the letter that it didn't.

BC: Letter says *nothing* about stopping others speaking. It's about holding open a space to express GC views.
[bit of discussion with J to clarify this]
DD: Can I add. I felt the letter took strong, potentially polarising position.

DD: sometimes polarised positions are a good way to start exploring. But did not feel it was good in this case.
BC: Not your job as head of dept to critique tone of how others speak
DD:No.

BC: If you start doing that explicitly or implicitly you are limiting academic freedom
DD: Correct
BC: JP views in Times letter should be covered by that.

DD: Yes but I was initially upset but then I thought a bit and then I was taking care for 2 members of staff who were going to be upset.
BC: But you should have made sure that JP future expression not inhibited.
DD tend to agree.

BC: [ref] you are writing and saying that what JP has done is *not* within AF and should not have said
DD: was written in initial upset, thinking about how to support the 2 staff, how dept cd show support to them, was in heat of initial reaction.

BC: I put that you are putting spin on things and in fact you felt that JP should not have been saying these things at all
DD: No its more that this was only time I felt lack of clarity btwn AF and duty of care, and colleagues conflct.

DD: COnsidering whether anything problematic, for institution, around that letter.
DD: But when I talked to other colleagues clarified my thoughts.

BC: You say here *many* colleagues upset. Not just you and Dr Downes. Overwhelming opposition to JP.
DD: No. 3 people at core - out of dept of 30. Many still not involved. Most just wanting to support everyone, JP and Abby and Leigh too.

DD: Much support for JP too and that her views of interest.

BC: Here we see CW talking of a whatsapp group HBC has set up. You joined that group.
DD: yes
BC: [bundle ref] Your email to CW said you'd written to HBC too?
DD: Let me refresh memory [reads]

BC: You say to HBC you endorse her tweets. Do you recall HBC was criticising times letter.
DD: don't recall
BC: BUt you endorsed
DD: I did at the time yes.

BC: You say you have a lot of ppl in department upset about this. Not just the "ripple effect" you mentioned.
DD: I meant, upset about the strife not upset with JP.

BC: And the whatsapp group is going on at the same time, and JP is part of it.
DD: No she had left.
BC: Are you sure
DD: Well yes I am sure I remember that. I would not have said this if she had been in it.

BC: that is my Q. When did she leave.
DD: Am sure it was long before this. 2018 maybe
BC: Do you have the messages thing
DD: Not very clued up - I have new phone since. Group still exists but I don't know how far back.

DD: In any case I know I wasn't contributing on whatsapp re all this, wd not have thought it appropriate.

BC: You say you were "really disturbed" by a video - the one JP outlining her research,
DD: Don't recall. Am sure that is right but no recollections.

BC: [bundle ref] you are referring to CW email, about JP planning research on trans prisoners.
DD: I don't recall but yes that seems to be the case, department video.
BC: You mention dismay and alarm re trans prisoners.
DD Don't recall but yes that what it's saying I htink

BC: You knew CW would be dismayed and alarmed.
DD: Yes prob true
BC: Bcs you knew he objected to GC beliefs
DD: Yes so reaching out to support.

BC: Well you are saying you share dismay and alarm
DD: about whether JP had correct expertise.
BC: About her views.
DD: No about her lack of expertise.

BC: Your dismay and alarm is at the very idea of her researching.
DD: No about her claiming expertise and trying to join another project
BC: JP did not say anything about that
DD: No but it happened later
BC: Not true
DD: Yes it is.

BC: JP does have much experience re prisons. And is not claiming any expertise she does not have. She is proposing research. You express outright hostility
DD: Not so. We had disagreements but agree to disagree. Not hostility.

BC: You say ppl ("not Julia") wanted non-punitive way forward. Means Dr Downes did want punitive?
DD: No was not like that. Was looking for way for dept to co-exist productive way.

BC: Your focus was stopping JP saying things that upset people.
DD: No I wanted everyone including JP to be able to speak - tho obviously if it could be done *without* upsetting ppl that would be better.

BC: You say "minefield". It's clear majority of ppl in dept opposed to JP
BC: No there are a couple of other GC ppl in dept. But they haven't upset anybody

BC: You say you want JP to extend olive branch to Dr Downes [missed a bit]

BC: Correspondence about existing project here.
DD: Wd have to read it all to refresh. Think JP trying to join project.
BC: Clear that JP saying she's keen *not* to step on others' toes - offering various options.

BC: She is not trying to muscle in, is she.
DD: Convo I had with JP was that she was upset Leigh and Abby didn't want her on project. Felt I was walking line between JP wanting to and LD not.

DD: The 2 of them had not mended fences after several earlier disputes. Told JP she had to give LD time, that working together not good at that time. Also told LD she should give JP benefit of doubt.

BC: I suggest JP was upset not about not being on project but about the complete rebuffal of every attempt she had made to reach out
DD: Thing was JP was just not needed on it/

BC: Coming to the Essex cancellation. very serious thing for any academic
DD: Yes
BC: Bound to be upsetting
DD: Yes
BC: Anyone wd look for support from their department
DD Yes

BC [bundle ref] we can see you were aware of it the same day it happened
DD: Yes JP told me
BC: You emailed IF and, this is?
DD: Michael is head of school

BC: You say you know they're aware of JP cancellation and are letting them know you have offered support, that JP says she's not upset but did sound upset. Putting on a brave face?
DD: Yes

BC: Prof X checks for more details - you supply, you describe the threatened protests etc, you describe how JP feeling.
DD: Yes

BC: You say you have not always agreed with JP, but have no hesitation supporting her in this and know she must be feeling terrible.
DD: Yes.

BC: You have referred ahead to this correspondence to claim you have been supportive to JP
DD: Actually no was referring to 2021 correspondence

BC: But let's look at what you were saying elsewhere at this time. [ref] same day; you email with Rhys Walters at Deacon university Australia - ex OU. RW mentions JP seminar and the trouble about it - you reply, it's now been cancelled.

BC: You were saying not really violent, you were belittling it.
DD: No was saying should have gone ahead.
BC: RW says JP will "grandstand" and sneers that nobody wd have gone. Shared view of you and RW.

DD: Not accurate. I think we understood that JP had agreed to cancellation bcs she was moving house. That [] had explained to JP that he hadn't known she was controversial, so not right arrangements, and JP had said OK let's postpone.

DD: We thought that JP was willing. Was willing to postpone. Reindorf Report says different so we must have got that wrong.

BC: But you'd just emailed IF and {XX} to say you knew JP was upset, was saying she had been censored. Can't both be true.
DD: Yes they can both be true.

BC: [ref] You say here that you thought JP might go to the media. You were really hostile. You think she is manipulative and grandstanding.
DD: Heat of moment. Cd have been true. Doesn't mean I didn't respect her.

BC: Another from RW. Says Jo milking it, capitalising on it, and says she must not throw Nigel under bus. You reply "exactly".
BC: You are meanwhile writing to your supervisors how much you are supporting JP.
DD: "Exactly" didn't mean I was agreeing with all of it.

BC: You say JP never cares about what impact on colleagues in department, upsetting them. When she i doing legit research.
DD: More about that she's not taking account of whole community. Not hostility.

DD: Was not saying I would treat JP differently from anyone else

BC: What comes across is your attitude is that JP brought it on herself and then claimed victim.
DD: Might have felt that at times but not all the time. Many discussions. Open to many possibilties.

DD: Must allow for negative view of staff but must be open to changing mind and to talking.

BC: you were telling your superiors JP must be feeling terrible, that she was feeling censored.
BC: You later say exactly the opposite to someone else. You had hostility to her and her views.

DD: No someone can have different roles at different times, different powers, it's possible to see both, in a single day.

BC: Suggest break for lunch.

J: Remind DD must not discuss during break.
[LUNCH - no resume time mentioned but I assume 2pm]