Academic Freedom is not Freedom from Consequence
“Every word has consequences. Every silence too.” Jean-Paul Sartre
I am very grateful to the Open University for engaging directly with me this week, asking questions and taking the time to understand the concerns that I and many other members of our community have. I am publishing my response here as I know there are people who need to know that progress is being made, and that their very real fears have not been forgotten. This is my message to them, too.
I am still here, and I am still fighting this. Don’t give up, because I am not giving up. Not now. Not ever. Your community has your back, and always will. You deserve the right to work and study in a place where you are accepted, respected, and acknowledged for who you are with dignity and without hostility, and where you know you are safe and free to be your authentic self, even if there are other spaces in your life where this isn’t true, yet.
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak to me this week, and for allowing me to clarify my point of view. I would like to reiterate the main points I would like you to take forward from our discussion:
• ‘Gender Critical’ is a phrase or descriptor with a very specific weight and context. I understand that many people outside the LGBTQ+ community, feminist activism or gender research may not necessarily be aware of this, but it is also no secret, whether used self-referentially or to describe others. It is readily available after even the most cursory research, (This Week, 2021) (Zanghellini, 2020) and I conducted a twitter poll held over seven days as further evidence of this, (Russell 2021) which gained over 2000 responses from all sides of the debate.
‘Gender Critical’ is widely recognised as a euphemism for transphobia or trans exclusionary principles.
It is a term used to describe those who wish to roll back the rights trans people have, and who do not believe that trans people are the gender that the law and wider society say they are. Gender Critical beliefs neither wish to include nor allow the recognition of trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming voices in any field, even those relating to their own lives, safety and healthcare.
• The Open University has a widely recognised and well earned reputation for inclusion, diversity and acceptance. Many students and staff are here specifically because of this. The presence of a Gender Critical research network at the Open University undoes all this; not only fundamentally damaging that reputation, but causing the OU to renege on its duty of care towards those vulnerable members of our community.
• Academic freedom is a hugely important principle, and no one wants to see this compromised. However, as the Open University’s own Academic Freedom Policy (Open University, 2019) states, this must not come at the expense of: “Treating others with courtesy and respect, challenging inequalities, and anticipating and responding positively to different needs and circumstances.” Academic freedom comes with a responsibility to, “Respect the rights of individuals to hold different beliefs and views and to express them through appropriate contribution to discussion and academic debate.” This means making sure that all voices are equally included in debate and discussion. There must be means provided to ensure that every person involved will, “Communicate in ways that are clear, relevant, respectful, accurate and timely, and [be] exemplified by transparency and constructive dialogue”. That is not what is happening here by any means, and not what a Gender Critical Network can ever provide, by its very nature, as it is sidelining, diminishing and excluding trans voices.
• Academic freedom also requires that, “We will be academically rigorous, justify our views with evidence and academic argument and be willing to recognise the gaps and weaknesses in our own arguments.” You cannot be academically rigorous when approaching research on gender, sexuality or the sexed body from a Gender Critical perspective. You are immediately taking up a declared position, and preventing trans voices from being heard. Confirmation bias is practically guaranteed. There cannot be good quality, diligent research under these circumstances, and the Open University’s very high standards in world leading research cannot possibly be met.
• Academic freedom is like freedom of speech: it is not freedom from consequence. You have responsibilities if you wish to access the privilege of academic freedom. “In promoting our ideas, we will make every reasonable effort to minimise the risks of any harm, either physical or psychological, arising for any person, institution or community.” Gender Critical research, by its very nature, harms the trans community. That is its purpose.
• “We will be aware that some academic opinions and arguments may cause offence to some people but that this is not, of itself, a sufficient reason not to express those opinions and arguments. We will, nevertheless, be sensitive to the views of others and we will not present or challenge views in a way that is hostile or degrading.” I can see no way to express Gender Critical views that are not hostile or degrading to both the trans community and the wider LGBTQ+ community and their allies – and it is up to those communities and individuals to define what is ‘hostile’ or ‘degrading’. Researching the trans experience and that of those who experience gender in ways other than the majority is to be welcomed, if it is done in an inclusive and respectful way, as it easily can be.
• To be recognised as a Research Network, and hosted by the Open University, certain academic principles and standards must be met. A Gender Critical Research Network cannot fulfil either of these. Simply by starting from a Gender Critical point of view, objectivity is lost. Trans voices will not be heard, either by being listened to in an unbiased manner or by putting themselves forward be part of a network of this name. Without them, what sort of thorough or complete research into gender can possibly be undertaken? It’s like writing about sex work, and the rights of sex workers and how those are best served, without ever actually speaking to any sex workers. This is the equivalent of a white person saying white privilege doesn’t exist because they’ve never experienced it. It’s placing disabled toilets up a series of steps. By not including the voices that really matter, by allowing privilege to let you think you know better, all that happens is you get things wrong. Everything you do ceases to have value.
• The welfare of students and staff and the wider community, their well-being, mental health and right to work and study in an environment free from discrimination and hostility is obviously a secondary consideration to the benefits accrued by a tiny number of Gender Critical staff in linking the Open University name to their ‘research’. But that’s ok, because there’ll be extra counselling and support available to everyone affected by this, because the OU at least recognise people are going to need it. You’ll hate this and it’ll make your time with the OU really difficult and potentially traumatic, but you don’t matter as much to us as the career opportunities of a few of our staff. Still, do let us know if you need someone to talk to about your feelings or advice on how to develop some coping strategies… This is the message we’re getting, and it’s shockingly misjudged and completely tone deaf.
• There is already a Gender Critical Research Network with around 100 members, set up by one of the founding affiliate members of the OUGCRN. We know this as it was clearly referenced in the recent Employment Tribunal involving Maya Forstater. (HMCTS, 2021) Being part of this is surely open to OU staff? Was Prof Stock’s network lacking some way?
• As I hope I’ve managed to get across, the issue here is with the name ‘Gender Critical’. If those involved do just want a place to come together and discuss and research issues around gender, sexuality, the body and how these impact both on society and so many academic disciplines, then call the network the OU Gender Research Network. Or the Gender Diversity Project, the Research into Sex and Gender Network or any of a thousand things avoiding the phrase ‘Gender Critical’. All that phrase does is attract transphobia and exclude trans people and trans allies, and devalue any research that is undertaken, as it cannot be objective when it comes from a place of privilege and prejudice.
• The fact that the co-conveners have stated publicly (Hartley, The Critic, 2021) that the reason they have launched this network at the OU is that, without the same physical campus as a brick university, students will not be able to organise and protest. The phrase “You can imagine the sort of picketing and disruption there’d be..” was used, with a laugh, demonstrating they are fully aware how offensive the great majority will find their point of view, and how little they care about this fact. This isn’t about undertaking the highest quality of research. It’s about point scoring.
• The reason this particular network and these particular people came together was because of a letter posted in the Times by Professor Stock (Duffy, Pink News, 2019) expressing concerns about the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme, and what it meant for standards and teaching in higher education. They were two of the 30 signatories to that letter, and this was at the time something that created issues between themselves and other OU staff, and their union, the UCU. People did not agree with their stance or their motives then, and do not do so now. That letter was followed by a counter-letter, also in the Times, (Dodds Pennock, The Times, 2019) a week later expressing support for trans staff and students and trans inclusion in education, and was initially signed by over 3600 academics, eventually reaching over 5000 signatures. People do not agree with the Gender Critical standpoint, or the bigotry underlying it. People also do not agree with the current, seemingly coordinated attacks on Stonewall and the Diversity Champions scheme. Just this week, University College London UCU voted to return to the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme, having initially been driven to withdraw from it by a small but vocal protest. Diversity Champions does not allow for the promotion or manifestation of Gender Critical thinking, because Gender Critical thinking is transphobic. People can of course hold Gender Critical beliefs. The Forstater judgement has confirmed that. But they cannot expect the people around them to agree with, accept or even tolerate that point of view, any more than they would racism, fascism or anti-semitism. Hosting this network will almost certainly be the first step towards moving to withdraw from the Stonewall scheme and undo the protections it has put in place. There was mention in the interview for The Critic (The Critic, 2021) of the OUGCRN reviewing all OU courses for content that they ‘might think of differently’, which I find a breathtaking overstep of their possible influence or role. I think we all need reassurance that whatever happens, this is not something that will ever take place, and I would like to see that reassurance in writing, as soon as possible.
• I realise that I may be restating points I’ve made previously in the four @medium (Russell, S J, writing as S J Tamsett, ongoing, Medium) posts I have made so far on this issue, but I want to be absolutely clear to anyone engaging with this matter, at whatever point they arrive. I am making this letter open, as I have made the others, because I have made promises not only to myself but to students and staff who have contacted me since this started. I need them to see I am not giving up on this, or on them, although many already feel rejected and despondent. I know from my own experience that being able to study at the Open University changes lives. Denying the possibility to fulfil their potential to those who most need to know they have found a place of safety and support is just wrong, and goes against everything that I see the Open University as standing for. I would like to hope that everyone who is part of our OU community feels that way too.
Thank you for helping me get my concerns to where they need to go. I’d obviously be really grateful if you could let me know of any further feedback you have, or any idea you may have of a timeline for a response to any of this. For the record, this is not something I feel I am able to step away from, and I will persist in raising these issues until I feel there is a satisfactory conclusion both for myself and everyone else negatively affected by this. There are so many people who are not in a position to speak up and state their own case in this matter, and whilst there is even one person that this applies to, I will continue to advocate for them.
I have taken your advice and am pursuing this through the official Open University complaints process, which is available to students here: should anyone else wish to do the same thing. I will also be reporting social media activity that does not conform to the OU Social Media Policy via the Open University’s formal process here, and would encourage anyone else with any concerns to do so too.
I simply hope that following your assistance, we can move more quickly towards a resolution of this unfortunate situation.
With many thanks for your time, and your willingness to listen and understand,
SJR
References:
Dodds Pennock, C, ‘Letters to the Editor; Dons Speak Up For Stonewall Trans Programme’, The Times, 23rd June 2019, Available at; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/letter-to-the-editor-dons-speak-up-for-stonewall-trans-programme-5m5jkxk3c, Accessed 20th September 2021
Duffy, N, ‘After 30 academics sign letter opposing trans rights, 3600 sign letter in support’, Pink News, 18th June 2019, Available at; https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/06/18/after-30-academics-sign-letter-opposing-trans-rights-3600-sign-letter-in-support/, Accessed 20th September 2021
Hartley, O, ‘Inside the New Gender Critical Research Network’, The Critic, 23rd July 2021, Available at: https://thecritic.co.uk/inside-the-new-gender-critical-research-network/, Accessed 20th September 2021
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others: UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ – Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment of Mr Justice Choudhury, Mr C Edwards and Mrs MV McArthur on 10 June 2021.’ Available at: https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj, Para 51, P24; Accessed 20th September 2021
Open University, 2019, ‘Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom’, Available at: https://help.open.ac.uk/documents/policies/academic-freedom-principles-statement/files/1/statement-of-principles-on-academic-freedom.pdf, Accessed 20th September 2021
Russell, S J, Twitter Post, 20th August 2021, Available at: https://twitter.com/essers/status/1428742966756139010?s=21, Accessed 20th September 2021.
Russell, S J, writing as S J Tamsett, Medium, 2019 – current, Available at; https://link.medium.com/b9rh2iCOMjb, Accessed 23rd September 2021
Samuelson, K., (2021), ‘What Are Gender Critical Beliefs?’, The Week, 27th July 2021, Available at: https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/953619/what-are-gender-critical-beliefs, Accessed: 20th September 2021
Zanghellini, A, 2020, ‘Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion.’ SAGE Open, April-June 2020, P1 – 14, DOI: 10.1177/2158244020927029, Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244020927029, Accessed: 20th September 2021
