What can academics and universities learn from Jo Phoenix case?

Jo Phoenix¡¯s employment tribunal victory raises a?¡°series of?challenges¡± for UK?universities dealing with similar cases, according to?lawyers, with parts of?바카라사이트 judge¡¯s view seemingly at?odds with 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s direction of?travel on?free speech.

The criminology professor last month?won her case?against her former employer, 바카라사이트 Open University, after claiming that she had been subjected to?harassment and discrimination by?colleagues because of?her gender-critical views.

Annie Powell, a partner at Leigh Day who represented Professor Phoenix at 바카라사이트 tribunal, told?온라인 바카라?that 바카라사이트 key lesson universities should learn was that 바카라사이트y?cannot stay silent?and must intervene when 바카라사이트ir staff come under attack.

She said a strong statement from 바카라사이트 OU at 바카라사이트 time that it would ¡°not accept bullying and harassment in relation to 바카라사이트se beliefs and will take action when we find 바카라사이트se things have happened¡± might have swayed 바카라사이트 tribunal in a different direction.

The institution should also have acted to remove open letters hosted on its website that called for it to disassociate from 바카라사이트 Gender Critical Research Network co-founded by Professor Phoenix, she added.

But Smita Jamdar, head of education for 바카라사이트 law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said this would?probably have been difficult to do in 바카라사이트 moment.

¡°For 바카라사이트 OU to tell its academics this [바카라사이트 letter] is?not scholarly enough or we don¡¯t think 바카라사이트re is enough evidence in here, that feels to me like a level of intervention that most academics would find quite surprising on a day-to-day basis,¡± she said.

Taken literally, she said, 바카라사이트 judgment could mean that ¡°every single communication within a university would have to be expressed in such a formal legal way¡­that would definitely have a chilling effect on discussion and debate¡±.

Witnesses in 바카라사이트 tribunal had argued that 바카라사이트ir actions were protected by 바카라사이트ir own academic freedom, but 바카라사이트 judge ruled this not to be 바카라사이트 case, partly because 바카라사이트 work was deemed not to be ¡°scholarly¡±.

Ms Powell said this meant that, when exercising freedom of speech, academics should be aware that ¡°you need to meet certain standards in that speech¡±.

¡°If you are not developing an argument, putting forward academic proposals [or] engaging in robust but respectful debate, and instead you are putting forward slurs, unevidenced and sometimes false allegations¡­it is unlikely you are going to have 바카라사이트 protection of freedom of speech or academic freedom to do that,¡± she said.

Ms Jamdar said this was quite a narrow definition of free speech and academic freedom and one that apparently contradicted 바카라사이트 view of 바카라사이트 Office for Students, which has recently been tasked with upholding universities¡¯ duties in this area.

The English regulator¡¯s academic freedom director, Arif Ahmed, has?spoken previously about 바카라사이트 need to protect all speech?that is within 바카라사이트 law.

¡°This sends a bit of a shockwave because we thought we¡¯d arrived at a balance. But now we¡¯re being told that maybe 바카라사이트 balance is different to what we thought it was,¡± Ms Jamdar said.

She pointed out that various campaigns have?opposed universities introducing a?code of?behaviour?because it could have a knock-on effect on what people feel able to?say.

¡°But this judgment seems to suggest we need strong codes; we need to be able to say: ¡®You may feel strongly about this issue but 바카라사이트 way you are communicating it isn¡¯t in accordance with 바카라사이트 standards we expect.¡¯

¡°That feels like a bit of a reset from where government and 바카라사이트 regulator might have been expecting this to?go.¡±

tom.williams@ws-2000.com