Open University to rethink free speech and equality post-Phoenix

An independent report has told The Open University to better balance free speech provisions alongside its equality, diversity and inclusivity strategy in the wake of the Jo Phoenix tribunal ruling.

The recommendations, written by Dame Nicola Dandridge, former chief executive of the Office for Students, say that the university’s equality, diversity and inclusivity approach should support those who identify as trans and non-binary, as well as “those with gender-critical and trans-inclusive views and perspectives”. 

“Supporting the rights of one group should not come at the expense of another,” it says, and recommends that the university should agree a clearly defined set of principles regarding free speech, equality and employment rights.

The review was commissioned by the OU following the high-profile tribunal judgment which found that it failed to protect Professor Phoenix, who said she was forced to quit because of a “hostile environment” created by colleagues opposed to her gender-critical views.

The tribunal proved controversial, gaining online traction because of its ruling on the balance between gender-critical and “trans-inclusionary” views in the workplace. 

Dame Nicola’s recommendations says clear guidelines should be developed on the expression of personal views, and systems and structures should be implemented to support the promotion of free speech and academic freedom. It says the OU should also make clear when free speech or principles of equality result in bullying and harassment where “staff expressing their personal views turn into unacceptable behaviour”.

The review further recommends that the university: 

• Create a working group to oversee the implementation of the recommendations
• Establish standards of behaviour that should be developed and implemented through mandatory training, as well as training to support managers in managing disagreements
• Explore initiatives or projects to encourage debate and constructive disagreement.

The university has accepted the recommendations in full, and Tim Blackman, the OU’s vice-chancellor, said the review was “valuable learning” into “how we can and must change”. 

“As a university we must ensure that academic freedom and freedom of speech are protected more proactively and that unacceptable behaviours are challenged and corrected whenever and wherever they occur,” he said.

“We have already taken several steps following the tribunal judgment and this review will be an important reference point ensuring the OU remains a place of open thought and scholarly debate in a community that has regard for the well-being of everyone.”

The report supported the tribunal’s findings that the OU had become an environment where voices on both sides of the debate felt afraid to express their views. The report linked this, in part, to the university’s online working model: “Although fundamental to its identity, the OU’s online existence was seen as making it harder to secure good relationships between staff, particularly when they disagreed.”

Dame Nicola said her report highlighted how there were “profoundly different views” on how staff disagreements should be managed, “and how contentious matters should be discussed and addressed at the university”.  

“These are difficult and challenging issues that the entire higher education sector is grappling with. I hope not only the OU but others across the sector will find the report’s positive recommendations useful,” Dame Nicola added. 

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com