Main Edition
US
FR
January 23, 2024 - 7:00am
A gender-critical academic has won her case against the Open University. In a significant victory for academic freedom, an employment tribunal has concluded that Professor Jo Phoenix suffered discrimination, harassment and was constructively dismissed by the OU. Crucially, the tribunal found that the university failed to protect Phoenix out of “fear of being seen to support gender-critical beliefs”.
The 155-page judgment, which was published on Monday afternoon, found that colleagues compared Phoenix to a “racist uncle”. They also posted statements on the OU’s website claiming gender-critical beliefs fostered an environment which endangered the lives of trans people. More than 380 academics signed a public letter calling on the OU to close down Phoenix’s research group.
Phoenix posted news of her victory on X, describing it as “a message to all universities: you cannot stand back and allow gender critical academics to be hounded out of their jobs.” The judgment comes only days after a report by the Committee for Academic Freedom revealed that nine universities have policies under which academics who don’t believe that transwomen are women are considered “transphobic”. They include Imperial College, Sheffield Hallam University and the London Business School.
Such policies are clearly in conflict with both the right to free expression and the intellectually curious atmosphere that should exist in higher education. They are further evidence of the way in which trans lobbyists have degraded basic rights in one institution after another, forcing people to accept transparent nonsense about “gender identity”.
Phoenix’s victory, though welcome, has come at great personal cost. When I first interviewed her, more than two years ago, she had just announced that she was bringing a case against the OU. She had decided to leave her “dream job” at the university after experiencing unremitting hostility from colleagues, leaving her sleepless and diagnosed with PTSD. Her offence? Conducting research on the effects of allowing trans-identified men, including convicted sex offenders, to serve their sentences in women’s prisons.
Since then, the policy has blown up into a scandal, thanks to the spectacle of a double rapist being briefly housed in a women’s prison in Scotland. Former inmates have talked about their fears at having to share showers and toilet facilities with men who walked around with obvious erections, despite claiming to be women. But Phoenix told me that her research had turned her into a hate figure, metaphorically put in the stocks by colleagues who accused her of transphobia.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeVia Unherd, the author of this piece is able to bring to light cases which deserve much more widespread publicity than will be found in mainstream media. It does appear as if it’s one victory after another for those wishing to express perfectly legal and moral beliefs, and being hounded out of positions where their right to hold those views should be cherished and openly debated.
I doubt this will be the last case of its kind, and i’m sure JS won’t hesitate to bring any further cases to our attention. Each and every legal victory plays a part in the pushback against extremism. I’ve yet to see or hear of any evidence that any of those who’ve been harassed out of their positions would be anything but sympathetic towards someone who’s transitioned and is now living as part of a community whose respect for others should be a given. Clearly, this would not include any biological males seeking to exploit the opportunities provided by the transactivist mindset for sexual purposes.
Finally, good to hear Prof Phoenix has found tenure elsewhere. Rising from the ashes, indeed.
The Times did report it and I believe so did the Guardian although not sure of what the latter’s take on it was as I refuse to read it now.
The Times article was very supportive of Jo Phoenix.
The Graun came out strongly in favour of Phoenix in an article today. Which surprised me, I must admit.
I am astonished to read that:
Groupthink on a grand scale among the thinking classes and particularly despicable considering the perfectly reasonable subject of her research:
Wouldn’t it be great if every one of those 380 ‘academics ‘ had to give an account of themselves in public or face dismissal proceedings ?
They should face the same ‘the process is the punishment ‘ schtick that they inflict on their detractors.
Too lenient. How about mandatory morality training and a semester long course on “Academic Ethics” for the 380 OU miscreants.
I am sure the Peterson Academy could host such an approved course at say a special rate of £10,000 per attendee. The income could help them subsidize the $3000 price of a P.A. degree.
Good suggestion, especially as Peterson could say he’s absolutely unbiased – just like the KCL staff who programme the Home Office.
They have behaved like playground bullies.
This points up the conformist intellectual bankruptcy of current academics. Where where the counter public letters? Universities have become bloated zoos for the 10th rate intellectual. The fruits of Blair’s “Education, education education” mantra.
You are assuming they must be 10th rate. Without names how can we know? They could be highly accomplished in their particular field but so anxious about losing their status and income that conformity is a safe option (with the soothing moral addition of support for the underdog).
In journals such as UnHerd we routinely read of institutions which have been taken over by woke ideology. Yet that takeover will probably have been instigated by a handful of influential ideologues who remain nameless while “the institution” itself is condemned.
Unfortunately, journals (online and otherwise) have become cheap opinion-churning organs while investigative reporting – more expensive, demanding and genuinely valuable – has been allowed to die out. Without honest research and investigation news & current affairs are reduced to never-ending conflicts of opinion. Rather than being better informed readers are left to choose a side largely on moral grounds.
It’s more likely they are queer or a woman. There are hardly any straight male professors left and as such academia has become hell-bent on ‘queering the world’ even to the point they will ally with terrorist groups like Hamas to bring this about. They are so incredibly stupid and coddled that they simply have no concept of the evil they are visiting upon us, least of all themselves, if groups like Hamas or Isis take control.
Do I detect a slight touch of stereotyping?!
“queer or a woman”? I’m not sure you can conflate queerness (whatever the hell that is) and being a woman and put them together into an ideological box.
In academia, queer and feminist scholars are often allied in their insane goal to eradicate the Patriarchy i.e. remove straight white males from positions of authority and replace them with those who further their ambitions.
A large part of modern feminism is dedicated to replacing UMC white men with UMC women
They would be”Intersectional Feminist scholars” who are not really Feminist at all, because the kind of “inclusion” such “Feminists” are endorsing fundamentally undermines the rights and safety needs of women. Actually Feminist Feminism (as, e.g., manifested by so-called “TERFs”) does not have any part of this misogynist gender garbage.
Anyone stupid and bigoted enough to sign such a letter has to have their academic accomplishments called into question.
Academia is in the middle of a crisis of replication where most published papers in certain fields have been found to be fraudulent.
We cannot afford to have people who are so anxious about losing their status in positions of responsibility. They are not fit for the job and cause untold long term damage. If they don’t step up then the mob rules which is precisely what is happening all over. Institutions especially those funded by public money have a moral duty to protect their institutions from bad activists. I’m afraid’too anxious’ is not good enough. Stand up and be counted and lead .. this is was senior staff are paid to do, if you cannot do this, you are not fit for the job and take a role with less responsibility! If the institution is employing the wrong people the institution deserves to be condemned! I totally agree with your comment regarding investigative reporting and the investigative reports need to form a society that works and gets its own funding! Perhaps they also need to be a bit less anxious?
You make a couple of good points. Many intellectuals may be superb experts in their field and ignoramuses when considering matters outside it.
Again you are right that there is a lack of journalistic research to identify the pernicious ideologues. Given laws of libel this can, of course, a tricky area.
Sadly, a lot of joins are throughly infected as a result of education, dinner parties with the Zone 2 set, and the opportunities offered for creating heated debate. I’m never convinced by the claim they are doughty defenders of democracy!
You’re right. Peer pressure from a very noisy and ruthless minority silences many colleagues. Unfortunately, the silence can be taken as acquiesce so that this minority lunacy infects a wider audience of sheep.
“…so anxious about losing their status and income that conformity is a safe option (with the soothing moral addition of support for the underdog).” Quite.
As people of supposedly superior intellect the OU 380 could have stood together and stopped the lunatics running the asylum, but instead they chose professional and academic cowardice, personal moral bankruptcy and plain emotional stupidity.
As well as a huge personal win, Prof Phoenix’s victory is a real turning point for the pursuit of academic excellence and freedom of expression.
Not to mention actual biological reality.
We have X/Twitter. We need names!!!
In 1930s Germany, the Nazi party found greatest support amongst academics and teachers.
A point to remember when the thinking classes don that threadbare robe of moral superiority in which they feel so comfortable.
By the way, I wonder how many of UnHerd’s eager commentators are drawn from the academic class.
I’m afraid I am, although looking to leave.
I have seen this claimed a number of times, and it would not at all surprise me if it were true. However, rather than believe something purely on the basis of an online claim which conforms to my own prejudices, I would be obliged if you could point me at some actual evidence. Genuine enquiry.
https://theconversation.com/rise-and-fall-in-the-third-reich-nazi-party-members-and-social-advancement-123297
Actually, I think that https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/history/twentieth-century-european-history/social-bases-nazism-19191933?format=AR will probably do a better job of answering the question, but I don’t own a copy and haven’t read it.
Sorry for the delay replying – I have only just seen your response. Thank-you. Very interesting indeed.
No worries. glad you got to see the response.
I posted a link, but it went into Moderation limbo.
Go to theconversation.com and search for “Rise and fall in the Third Reich: Nazi party members and social advancement” . Also the Cambridge University Press has a book called _The Social Bases of Nazism, 1919–1933_ but you’ll have to get it from the library. (or buy it, but it is pricey.)
I posed two replies, one with links and one that just listed titles, and both went into moderation limbo.
But this one did not. So I assume it is the N-word that is triggering the moderation. Ok. Another try. You want the book with the isbn: 9781139200226
Also there is a study of this done by theconversation.com
That’ll be:
The Social Bases of Nazism, 1919–1933 by Detlef Mühlberger. Available in English on Amazon as a Kindle version for which the ISBN is not used.
Thank you
How disappointing that Unherd is policing freedom of expression even as it publishes pieces defending it. I’m assuming it’s an algorithm & not humans?
I would think so. But what I don’t understand is why Tom Graham gets to talk about them but I am not allowed to, if it is the N-word that is the offender.
It is staggering that research is even necessary into something that is so obviously a really bad idea.
I would like to know what her union were doing for her while this was happening. I hope they might be questioned about this. Because being bullied and harassed at work is something they should protect their members from. I hope there’s a journalist out there who will pursue this.
I suspect that the union would be capable of trying a clever switch in which her research is deemed to make politically privileged classes of people (aka victims) feel unsafe. Thereby she, inadvertently, becomes the bully and harasser.
I wish I were astonished. Just depressed
Isn’t it most likely a case of sign, be shunned, or lose your job? In the face of a militant group whose success in destroying others is widely known, I think it takes a remarkably brave academic to risk employment, family and health to oppose the ideologues. I would focus my ire on administrators.
I remember reading that 600 academics objected to Kathleen Stock’s OBE. There were very few from the UK but plenty from the US, Canada and Australia, so I suspect that, as with those 380 mentioned, some activist busy body rounded up the usual misogynists and trans activists.
In this case, shockingly, the 380 were all staff and postgraduate research students at the Open University.
Another day. Another gender critical feminist wins, albeit at great personal cost, a victory for reason and freedom of speech.
And of course, for women’s sex-based rights. It bears repeating: if a woman cannot freely say that a man is not a woman, then all her sex-based rights are in jeopardy.
If and, I hope, when we fully emerge from this trans-McCarthyite moment, all of us will have cause to thank those women who were brave enough to say that 2+2=4, in the face of the most appalling bullying.
As a committed post-modernist with critical theory leanings I can assure you that my belief that 2+2= 99 is as valid as your claim.
You’re forgetting intersectionality:
2+A=blue
Am I allowed to accuse you of any particular -ism or -phobia? Sounds highly offensive!
I’m about half way through the judgment …. it’s a massacre.
Utterly astonishing.
The tribunal basically calls one OU member after another an out and out liar taking part in organised bullying and intimidation.
One statement after another is dismissed as a lie, like pulling the legs off a dead insect.
There are literally dozens of named individuals who are going to have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to students, colleagues, prospective future employers, family, you name it. Reputations shredded.
My favourite part is paragraph 152.
“There was an email on 19 June 2019 from Dr Williams stating that there was a WhatsApp group set up to discuss the Claimant’s signing of the Sunday Times Letter. None of the witnesses asked (Dr Bowes-Catton, Dr Chris Williams or Dr Downes) who were part of the WhatsApp group were able to say why the group was set up and how long the group lasted for. Dr Williams did accept in cross examination that the WhatsApp group was around in June 2021 when there was a discussion about drafting the Open Letter, but Dr Williams was not able to tell the Tribunal who was in the WhatsApp group discussing the issue.
We considered all the Respondent’s witnesses’ evidence who were asked about this point and found all the witnesses to be evasive and resistant to providing the truth to the Tribunal. We simply did not believe Dr Downes, Dr Boukli, Dr Bowes-Catton or Dr Williams’ evidence on this point and find that the WhatsApp group was set up to counter gender critical beliefs at the OU and was being used to set up the Open Letter.”
“resistant to providing the truth”
It appears academia is quite the petri dish for creating this particular antibody.
Ha ha! No explanations needed; they are RIGHT whether we like it or not.
I’m only a fifth of the way through the judgment and it is incredible. The part where Professor Phoenix announces she just won a million dollar grant to sheer stony silence while the bullying Dr Downes is then immediately cheered on for ‘getting close to completing a grant application’ is gobsmacking.
To put it bluntly, these gender ideologues need rounded up and forced to speak to sincere psychotherapists. They have serious mental issues or are just jumping on the bandwagon. Let’s find out who is who, get those who need it serious help (not in the form of a mutilating sex change) and humiliate those who are just jumping on the ‘cool’ bandwagon of woke and gender politics.
I do wonder, has any of these cases been lost? Why do they carry on litigating (that would make an interesting film…)?
Maya Forstater only won on appeal. Hers was the first of these cases. Allison Bailey, QC, won her claim against Garden Court Chambers, but not against Stonewall, who advised GCC to oust her.
The Irish male teacher lost his case and is still in prison, I think, but his case is more complex. A teacher in the UK lost her case which was based on her Christian faith. Not sure if she’s going to appeal.
But the majority are winning, with substantial damages.
I don’t think I have heard about the last two you mention. Need to look them up.
Anyone got a list of those 380 SS/Gestapo ‘academics ‘? Want to know who they are, where and what they are teaching as don’t want them anywhere near my children. They dangerous and not fit for purpose.
Btw.. very well done Jo and Reading Uni! Looking forward to hearing more from you. Top marks for Joan S too!
Transwomen are transwomen, or why have the term at all?
I don’t automatically agree with the GCFs either. If a man has full gender reassignmemy surgery then he passes as a woman.
But that used to be the case for the tiniest, tiniest minority of a population, even in Thailand and Iran. The problem is that the Left has seized hold of the issue to push Californian Queer philosophy into the cultural mainstream.
No the Right has seized hold of the issue to push the Left out of the mainstream. The Left have been stupid enough to fall for it.
Post-2008 the Left was “we are the 99%” and they were calling for taxes and wealth redistribution. Thanks to the culture wars the Left is “what about the 0.0001%??”.
Neutered is perhaps an inappropriate term to use in the context but it has worked. If it weren’t for the culture wars Bernie would have had as good a chance as Trump.
So many supposed “free thinkers” on the New Right still buy into the cold war anti-communist pro-capital propaganda despite the fact that its natural consequence was the neoliberalism they all now despise and it has mistreated and exploited them for decades.
What part of “the mainstream” does the right control? Not mass media. Not the entertainment industry. Not publishing. Not academia. Not corporations bowing down to ESG and DEI.
They don’t control those entities — but they are revealing their moral bankruptcy. People are noticing.
When a man mutilates himself by cutting off his d**k, he is not a woman.
He is a mutilated and deluded man.
No normal man would consider such a person to be a sex partner.
But it is only a skirmish in a wider war (unfortunately).
From Spiked:
It seems like an individual can take on their employer in the UK, but a licensing body in Canada has authority over the opinions of members.
Canada is long lost
Tranada.
You who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears – and like to flatter yourself that Woke has peaked or is heading for defeat should take note. An enforceable moral code is beginning develop firm roots and educated Western youth are keen to see it become established.
In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel,
To show that all’s equal and that the courts are on the level……
And handed out strongly for penalty and repentance William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Have “the courts” ever been less on level than in recent times?
I think so. Possibly between 1950 and 1970 things in general were fairer. Depends how you define fair, of course.
The same is true with poverty. We are richer today than we’ve ever been but The Guardian today sees us poorer – because poverty has been redefined.
Absolutely. Christ said, “The poor you will always have with you”, and when “the poor” is simply defined as the lowest 10% on the income scale, that is self-evidently true.
IMO, the author lost all credibility in this sphere with Hurricane.
educated Western youth are keen to see it become established.
This part cannot be repeated often enough. They are the new Jacobins.
Mao’s Cultural Revolution continues… same tactics, same goals, same lunacy.
There will be some serious entertainment coming from that. Peterson is courageous, rich and very angry. He is talking about taking the idiotic training and documenting and publicizing it for all the world to see. Whoever “instructs” him is going to be recognized the world over as a moron barfing up the intellectual and moral equivalents of poop. They’ve picked a fight with a grizzly bear.
On the one hand academics should be free to criticise gender politics on the other we must eradicate criticism of Israel on campus
Israel’s enemies should be free to criticize. No-one should be fired for refusing to believe a man can really be a woman.
With this level of intellectual corruption in academia, what does it mean for the climate change religion ? The entire system is rotten from inside and the only remedy is to create new, uninfected institutions where freedom of thought is again the highest value, not the sensitivities of blue haired mental patients and angst ridden teenagers without any life experience and factual knowledge.
Crucially, the tribunal found that the university failed to protect Phoenix out of “fear of being seen to support gender-critical beliefs”.
Meet the new Jacobins. Much like the old, just not at the guillotine stage just yet.
They also posted statements on the OU’s website claiming gender-critical beliefs fostered an environment which endangered the lives of trans people.
Has anyone ever explained how lives are endangered? Has anyone even been asked that question? Just stop. Until this craze, no one cared about a guy in a dress and makeup. Then came the bathroom wars and the demands against “misgendering.” My god, the continually made up words. But the pushback has begun. Good.
In the UK the Free Speech Union (established 2020) does an excellent job defending free speech and countering identity politics, the cancel culture and post-modernist philosophies such as Critical Race Theory. It also provides legal and moral support to individuals who’ve been cancelled and shabbily treated, like Jo Phoenix. Membership of the FSU is open to anyone. I strongly urge people to join and support this superb organisation. I believe there are FSU equivalents in other western democracies like Australia, Canada, the USA, etc.
For ‘little people’ like me this is one thing we can do positively to contribute towards fighting the evils that have infected our world in recent times.
The tragedy is that it her settlement won’t come out of the pockets of the idiots who vilified her. Maybe if it did, these ‘academics’ might think twice about being so spineless that cannot support a colleague who speaks biological facts.
THE JUDGEMENT
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Joanna-Phoenix-v-The-Open-University-Employment-Tribunal-Reserved-Judgment.pdf
The Open University and all those other organisations who’ve been found to have discriminated unlawfully, need to take a good long look and their dominant ideology and the behaviour of their EDI ( equity, diversity inclusion) staff. So far the OU has expressed disappointment- in the outcome of the case not the treatment Prof Phoenix suffered- and talked about appealing. Most of the others have been silent, and there’s been a concerted effort to pretend there’s nothing to see here, including among HR advisers. I hope that when the Tribunal looks at remedy they make some suggestions about the policies of the OU. I also think that the ECHR should be issuing firmer guidance on the law.
Surely, if these academics believed in their convictions, they would welcome this research? The alternative is that they hold these opinions despite knowing that any evidential enquiry will undermine them, which is not credible, is it? Is it!?
God (or some other authority who cannot be subpoenaed, or even seen) has told them what is true. Facts don’t enter into it.
Victimisation pure and simple and all these Universities (no doubt in thrall to their Diversity Champion) should be hauled before an employment tribunal and compensation awarded.
A phrase like “perfectly legal views” passes by this author with not a hint of concern. Brits have a much bigger problem on their hands than they seem to realize.
Very damning for the OU. Reads like a nest of vipers. ‘Pressure of gender identity culture.’ ‘Publicly appease students and staff.’ Excessive power of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion lead.
Another of the many hit pieces on Unherd rabidly attacking the most vulnerable members of our society.
Horrible.
Aha Sham Brain! You’re at large again. I guess you come out when your stint as an intern is over for the day. Looks like you didn’t bother actually reading the piece before trotting out one of your routine (and ridiculous) attempts at provocation.
Oh well, perhaps you can regale the UnHerd readership with a witty response. Over to you brains…
I’m always at large, kiddo!
You seem to get very excited about it, just like a puppy when his owner comes home, wagging your tail and yapping excitedly!
Sham Brain? Is that really the best you can do? That’s a bit embarrassing.
Disabled/look after children? This article has nothing to do with them! What on earth are you talking about?
I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few of those 380 that forced Phoenix out were jealous of her academic ability and saw her as a threat to their prospects of advancement. The fact that she was snapped up by Reading rather than being left jobless seems to indicate that her skills are highly valued. Her gender critical beliefs just provided them with an opportunity to get rid. I’m glad she won her case and look forward to seeing more successes on this topic.
Incidentally, I don’t seem to have heard of any movement amongst female to male trans people to push for the same rights as the male to female trans activists. Either no such movement exists, or it doesn’t get any publicity.
What you say in your 2nd paragraph is very much true. As a member of the LGBT community myself, I have observed this discrepancy for years. It is because FTM Trans people were raised as females, and taught to be polite and accommodating, not to impose on others, and to pick their battles. So most of them just want to be left alone to live their lives. MTF Trans people, on the other hand, were raised as males. And so therefore, many of them have an extreme sense of ENTITLEMENT. They are pushy and strident and don’t know when to back off and shut up. (Most “unladylike”, actually! Is that any surprise?) They not only alienate many people, even would-be allies, but often engage in bullying as well. I am sure that many of those who villified and persecuted Ms. Phoenix would fit this profile.
Yes, what you say makes sense. But it seems to me that this trans activism [ or bullying is perhaps a more appropriate word] is reinforcing the old stereotypes about male and female behaviour, as well as trying to dictate the terms of the debate. Light years away from the freedom to be left alone which is all that most reasonable people want.
They are not just raised as males. They live & die as males. And behave accordingly.
From the Telegraph: The nine universities where gender-critical academics are labelled ‘transphobic’ are Imperial College London, the University of Aberdeen, the University of Huddersfield, Brunel University, Sheffield Hallam University, Leeds Beckett University, London Business School, Robert Gordon University and the University of Plymouth.Time to name and shame.
What does “Open” mean in name “Open University”? Inquiring minds want to know.
Addendum….Jo Phoenix’s legal triumph against the OU shines a bright light on the febrile atmosphere and cowardice of Universities and academics captured (or playing lip service) by a weaponised Trans ideology, as referenced by Catherine Conroy/Jo Wilkinson’s comments below. She joins two other people brave enough to stand up to a pernicious ideology, Maya Forstater and Kathleen Stock, in the fightback!