Jo Phoenix: ‘every single v-c should read this judgment’

Scholar found to have faced ‘hostile environment’ due to gender-critical views warns ruling has implications for all universities, but fears more troubling cases to come

January 29, 2024
Portrait of Professor Jo Phoenix as decribed in the article
Source: Geoff Pugh/Shutterstock

A gender-critical professor who won an employment tribunal because her university failed to protect her from harassment has called on UK vice-chancellors to read the judgment as she fears there will still be similar cases unless institutions “stand up to their responsibilities”.

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Jo Phoenix said she felt her case against the Open University had “established the parameters within which debate can take place”, which “cuts to the heart of university culture” as well as showing that institutions have to step in when staff are being harassed.

Professor Phoenix was ruled to have faced a “hostile environment” at the OU and discrimination and harassment from colleagues because of her belief that people cannot change their biological sex. She left her post as professor of criminology in December 2021 to join the University of Reading.

“From my perspective, the big headline is that academics, students and people in universities cannot go round calling people who are gender critical or come from that perspective transphobes and terfs [trans-exclusionary radical feminists] without it being both an insult but also opening the possibility of it being an act of harassment to do so,” said Professor Phoenix.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The judgment was very, very clear that those kinds of statements are used as an insult and to create a hostile working environment – ie, to stop people talking.”

She said there were several points when the OU could have acted differently, including insisting that a conference that was cancelled due to the participation of speakers labelled “transphobic” should go ahead and warning staff that raising complaints about people because of their views was unacceptable.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Every single v-c needs to read the judgment,” said Professor Phoenix. “There are some real lessons that jump out about taking things seriously, dealing with them quickly, understanding that words are not a case of sticks and stones.

“Words like ‘transphobe’ are in the same realm as ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’ and ‘sexist’ – all people and ideas that are beyond the pale – and they have an effect; they destroy careers.”

Professor Phoenix said she “lives in hope” that her case will change the culture at universities but said she was aware of “many people across the sector facing vexatious complaints of transphobia” and many others who “dare not put their head above the parapet and enter into these discussions because they are so afraid”.

But she feared many will see the judgment as “simply advisory” and, “while some universities may decide to stand up to their responsibilities, some might not, and I fear there will be another case like this”.

“Realistically I hope things will change but I do worry it will take a long time and there is still going to be a lot of blood on the carpet,” she added.

Witnesses at the tribunal had claimed that their own social media posts and statements were protected by academic freedom but, on several occasions, the ruling found this was not the case.

In one instance, the judge ruled there was “nothing scholastic” about an open letter signed by more than 300 academics that called for the OU to withdraw its public support for the Gender Critical Research Network that Professor Phoenix co-founded. Another statement that implied this network was “putting human lives at stake” was said to be “somewhat hyperbolic”.

The ruling said “a certain basic level of rigour in presenting the evidence” was expected given most of the witnesses were academics, but some “did not meet this standard”.

ADVERTISEMENT

Professor Phoenix said she felt the ruling had shown that academics cannot publish “unevidenced statements”. “You can’t just say ‘they are a poo-face so their ideas are rubbish’. We don’t recognise that as a standard in universities and we wouldn’t publish articles like that in journals.”

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (8)

Indeed, this case demonstrates that academics should not expect to hide behind the invoking of academic freedom when they step away from the lectern and the realm of scholarly academic discourse in order to mount a soap-box so as to engage in a Twitter-storm, in (as the ET judgement puts it) a ‘pile-on’. Such abuse on social media might well be free speech but in the context of academics acting as agents of the University and hence the U being vicariously liable for their actions such irresponsible behaviour might contribute to the harassment of a colleague. As the article says, compulsory reading for all VCs and their gangs of PVC little-helpers - a wake-up call to the HE sector.
I commented to the last story in this interminable saga of Professor Phoenix's woes: "It's easy to jump up and down and be dogmatic about whatever it is YOU believe, and to whine like mad when someone has a different opinion. What we ALL need to do is recognise that there is a diversity of views, that people who hold those views feel strongly about them, and that when we disagree it is the OPINION that we are disagreeing with, not the person who holds it. "We must drop this misconception that we have to force our own views on others. I don't really care if you think there are only 2 sexes, immutably fixed at birth, or if you think that each individual can decide what gender they are from a whole menu (or make up a new one) - that's your opinion and you are welcome to hold it. What you do not have the right to do is to demand that I say you are correct. Nor should I demand that you adopt my views as The Only Truth. The sooner we all realise that, the better!" With all due respect, Professor Phoenix ought to realise this as well. Sometimes we have to agree to differ even when our views are diametrically opposite. Both those who accept gender-fluidity and the gender critical need to start acting as if they respected each other, even - especially - when they find t'other lot's views repugnant or somehow threatening (why anyone is threatened by an opinion escapes me but I know some folk do feel that way). Anyone unwise enough to flaunt their views on anti-social media is asking for trouble anyway. Stick to rigorous academic debate, but do it properly, please!
I agree that calm and rational debate is much more becoming of academics than ad hominems and soap-boxing. However, I think it is important to fairly represent the arguments, and from what I can tell, it is inaccurate to say that gender critical academics reject 'gender fluidity'. Rather, they say that no matter how somebody chooses to express their 'gender' in the sense of personal identity, humans cannot change sex. The other side seems to take a range of positions, ranging from 'humans can change sex' or 'sex is hard to define' to 'sex is not important and it is only gender that matters'. And it is not only a theoretical debate but it has implications for employer policies, data collection etc. The groups most impacted are women and transgender people, and the ongoing employment tribunal involving the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre illustrates the real-world stakes of these theoretical claims.
For most people who think sex is important in certain circumstances it is not at all about being ‘anti trans’ it is about protecting women’s rights. This is constantly misrepresented by trans activists.
Yes, as a biological scientist I would agree that those of us who understand the reality and immutability of biological sex have never had any difficulty in also fully accepting the reality of gender fluidity. I do not know any scientific colleagues who think otherwise. Women's rights and safety have indeed been significantly impacted by the aggression and intolerance of trans activists, who should understand that their behaviour also does not help trans people. It is tragic to see what has been done to Jo Phoenix, but also tragic that so many OU staff thought it appropriate to behave in this way to a colleague. I think it has done considerable damage to the reputation of the Open University (which I know well).
I agree with what Ann_Historian says above. The level of abuse female academics and employees have faced for holding very reasonable views has been appalling and uni managements have, for the most part, hung them out to dry. This ruling should change that! There are more tribunals in the pipeline which should indicate to universities that they may not allow staff or students, who hold certain beliefs about gender identity, to harass and bully those who do not share their belief. The insistence on the validity of these beliefs by zealous EDI staff and academics is truly detrimental, and students who don't wish to go along with the dominant voices are too scared to disagree or speak up. This is just not right and we cannot be ignorant of just how much certain ideologies have taken hold in universities with a limited sense of social justice as their main focus.
Buried within the lengthy legal judgement is a brief reference to Westmorland (one of the key bullies of Jo) as having gone for the O U position Jo held. Can’t say I’m surprised as a retired professor. There is nobody nastier than a jealous colleague!
It seems that many problems arise from the lack of clear definitions, e.g. of biological sex, at least in the relevant discourse. Does anyone dispute the statement: 'an individual cannot change (or has not so far been able to change, to be pedantic) the XX chromosomes in the majority of their body's cells to XY or vice-versa'? If not, then the problem is one of definition, and the worry that the imprecision of the definition will enable a 'yes' answer to a question to be reinterpreted (disingenuously or not) as a 'yes' answer to a different question, and hence to consequences with which the listener disagrees.

Sponsored

ADVERTISEMENT