Continuing Correspondence with Prof Paul Boyle, VC, Swansea University

His reply and my reply to him

On 6th June 2024, I wrote an open letter of complaint to the Vice Chancellor of Swansea University about a message that was circulated regarding the Outspoken Women event organised for 1st July at the Taliesin Centre. To remind readers, this is an event called “Sex, Discrimination and the Equality Act 2010”. I will be chairing it. The speakers include: Akua Reindorf (KC), Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater. I reproduce the bulk of the message here:

The Response

On 21st June, I received the following response from Prof Paul Boyle, Vice Chancellor, Swansea University.

My Response

24 June 2024

Dear Professor Boyle,

I am grateful to you for your letter dated 22 June 2024, which unfortunately misses (or evades) the points I made in my letter.

I stated in my original letter that I was writing to complain and that I considered the statement issued by Swansea University to be harassing. Your reply has not engaged with the fact that my letter is a letter of complaint. Nor have you engaged with my complaint that a leaked email evidences that at least one of your staff members specifically called the 1^st July event an ‘anti-trans’ event.

Whether the message in question was solely "an internal message to [your] staff", it nevertheless represents the official view of Swansea University, and you as Vice Chancellor, are responsible for its contents. The message was also a message for, as stated clearly, “our colleagues, students or the wider community”. I am a member of your wider community, both as an academic and an invited guest on to your campus. I find the message upsetting, hence my complaint to you as Vice Chancellor. Any reasonable person reading it (i.e. staff, students, or the wider community) would associate the message’s protagonists – those who are likely to cause “distress or upset” or “negative impact” – to be the speakers for the 1^st July event as well as the speakers at events last year. I am a speaker on 1^st July and was a speaker on 8^th March last year.  

You state in your reply to me that the message about which I am complaining was a way of re-assuring those who “expressed concerns”. If that was the intended aim, a proportionate, reasonable and logical is not a message that states that you cannot stop the event but that ample support will be there for those who hold highly prejudicial views about the speakers. You response could have been to reply privately to those who expressed concerns or to remind colleagues, staff, students that in a University there are bound to be ideas, arguments and events with which one disagrees. You might even have encouraged open discussion and debate.

That you entirely missed my point means that I must not have made myself sufficiently clear in my original letter of complaint. Gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs. Case after case confirms that the casting of these beliefs as ‘anti-trans’ or transphobic is nothing more than vexatious negative stereotyping.

The message posted by two senior executives of Swansea University refers to "the negative impact of similar events", without any explanation of the nature of the alleged "negative impact". However, the rest of that paragraph, confirmed by your own response to my letter, suggests that the sole envisioned "negative impact" is "distress or upset".

But what kind of "distress or upset"?  Is it merely "distress and upset" at hearing ideas that differ, perhaps profoundly, from one's own? If that is what is at issue, it is alarming that a university in a democratic country would prioritise protecting its students (or staff) from hearing ideas that might challenge their own, rather than encouraging them to hear many such ideas and then to weigh them with their own minds.

But since the people suffering "distress or upset" would presumably not be attending the event (but might instead protest outside), that "distress or upset" could not even be distress at hearing ideas that differed from their own.  Rather, it could only be "distress or upset" that other people should be allowed to express ideas that differ, perhaps profoundly, from their own. In other words, the distress or upset in question is distress precisely at the idea of freedom of expression and debate. 

It beggars belief that a university in a democratic country would pander to this type of "distress or upset", especially in light of the various employment tribunals that show how claims of “distress and upset” are used to chill open debate and harass people who hold gender critical beliefs.

The University's statement is clearly saying: we are permitting this event only because we are forced by law to do so, not because we have a sincere commitment to exposing our students to a variety of views.

Your letter concludes by stressing Swansea University's commitment to "tackling hatred, discrimination, harassment or abuse in any form on our campus" and to ensuring "the security and safety of all speakers, attendees, staff and students".  That is very nice, and I completely agree with it.  But what is its relevance here?  Why on earth bring it up in your response to me? There are only two possibilities. The first, you are saying that Swansea University would tackle all hatred, discrimination, harassment or abuse against any people, staff, students and your “wider community” which presumably includes those who hold gender critical beliefs. If this is the case, why have you missed the substantive points I made in my letter and singularly failed to engage with my complaint that the message is harassing of people who hold gender critical beliefs? It plainly is not the case.

So I am left with a second possibility. Are you insinuating that the planned event might include propagating "hatred, discrimination, harassment or abuse"? If so, what is the evidence for this?  I would remind you that the event will be a panel discussion, followed by discussion with the audience, of a variety of relevant social and political issues. The panellists will be a professor of criminology (myself), an eminent barrister (Akua Reindorf), a distinguished journalist and author (Helen Joyce), and an activist (Maya Forstater).  I can assure you that the discussion will be lawful and scholarly.  On what grounds can you justify imagining otherwise?

And in what way could the event impair anyone's "security and safety"? Surely you are not insinuating that the panellists might become violent. Are you referring, then, to the possibility of violence from protestors (for example, by blocking access to the Centre or assaulting attendees)?

I very much hope that that it is not a serious worry;  but if it is, then your message ought to be focussed on warning potential protestors that, according to Swansea University's Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech https://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Freedom-of-Speech-Code-of-Practice.pdf

“21.  Without prejudice to the right of peaceful demonstration, members of Swansea University shall not obstruct access to or egress from a designated meeting, and shall not aid or encourage other persons to cause such obstruction.”

It also ought to focus on ensuring adequate security to *protect* the event from possible violence from protestors.

All this being said, I fully understand that you may have arguments against, or responses to, what I have said in this letter; and in that case I very much look forward to hearing them and reading your response to my complaint. Let me promise to you that I will change my mind on anything I have said in this letter, if you can give me cogent reasons for doing so -- and I will do so publicly.  I trust that you will have the courage to do the same.

Let me also publicly invite you to attend the event, indeed to be a special guest of honour so that you might be able to witness its open, scholarly and professional nature – which will include the speakers willingness to hear objections and statements of disagreement from well-behaved attendees and to address those objections fairly.

I very much look forward to hearing your response.

Yours

Prof Jo Phoenix