The law is now clear, writes Susanna Rustin for The Guardian: “You can’t be punished for having gender-critical views.”
A series of court cases, most recently those of academic Jo Phoenix and social worker Rachel Meade, shows that workplace discrimination against those who don’t support self-ID or believe that ‘trans women are women’ continues.
Susanna continues: “Prof Phoenix’s win against the Open University (OU) in an employment tribunal was the first time a university has been found to have discriminated against a gender-critical employee.
“The ruling was highly critical of the organisation and members of its staff who collaborated on an open letter and statements opposing the establishment of a gender-critical research network of six people.
“The tribunal found that Prof Phoenix, a professor of criminology, had been constructively unfairly dismissed, discriminated against, victimised and harassed. And it said some of those involved in the attacks on her were “evasive and resistant to providing the truth” to the tribunal. (You can read the FSU’s review of the 155-page ruling here)
“Meade’s case, by contrast, had nothing to do with her actions at work.
“The allegations against Meade were based on a list of Facebook posts she had shared, in relation to gender law reform, with a closed group of about 40 “friends”. One of these complained to her regulator, accusing her of transphobia.
“Social Work England (SWE) then sanctioned her for misconduct. Westminster council suspended her from her job for 13 months. Two colleagues were also suspended for failing to report concerns.
“If Phoenix and Meade were the only examples of this kind of persecution they might be dismissed as one-offs.
“But other gender-critical people have faced similar mistreatment. Arts Council England was found last year to have harassed Denise Fahmy, with the judge noting that an executive’s comments “opened the door” to a petition against her and slurs including a reference to “neo-Nazis” that were circulated among colleagues.
“Allison Bailey, a barrister and one of the founders of the LGB Alliance, was discriminated against by Garden Court Chambers. Bailey failed in the part of her claim that sought to blame Stonewall – the gay and transgender rights charity that offers training, advice and awards to employers – for inducing her colleagues to discriminate against her but will try again in an appeal.
“Also in the pipeline are three separate claims against the Green party, and two more against the OU.”
One of those cases against the OU involves FSU member and former law lecturer Dr Almut Gadow.
Almut is bringing an employment tribunal claim arguing that she was harassed, discriminated against and unfairly dismissed having been sacked by her former university employer for questioning new requirements to embed gender identity theory within that institution’s law curriculum.
The case is ‘groundbreaking’ in that ‘academic free expression’ lies at its heart. This concept, set out in a string of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), encapsulates how article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects academic freedom — not least by prohibiting universities from penalising academics for questioning an institution or its curricula.
UK courts have yet to properly consider ECtHR case law on academic free expression. In seeking judicial guidance on this from an English employment tribunal, Almut’s case can hopefully entrench these protections in domestic law.
Almut will also argue that valuing academic freedom is, in itself, a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. Establishing this in law could protect many other academics whose careers are threatened by the rising tide of intolerance on UK campuses.
You can find out more about Almut’s case here.
Akua Reindorf KC, whose name has become almost synonymous with her ground-breaking work on the academic freedom of gender critical academics, will represent her in the tribunal.
