51³Ô¹Ï

Researchers?who lodged a tribunal complaint against the University and College Union (UCU), claiming it had discriminated against them for their gender-critical beliefs, have had their case dismissed by an employment judge.

Deirdre O¡¯Neill and Michael Wayne, academics at the University of Hertfordshire and Brunel University of London, lodged a legal complaint against their own union after screenings of their 2022 film, Adult Human Female, were cancelled at the University of Edinburgh following protests by the local UCU branch.?

A judge has now dismissed their claims of harassment and detrimental treatment, saying they ¡°had no effect on their trade union membership¡± or their ability to participate in union activities.

Mary Senior, Scotland UCU official, said the outcome represented a ¡°sensible and common-sense decision¡±, adding ¡°it cannot be right that a trade union is not able to protest peacefully within the law¡±.????

O¡¯Neill and Wayne faced backlash from campaigners who claimed their film was ¡°transphobic¡±, with the film stating that sex cannot be changed and that women¡¯s rights have been damaged by the trans movement.

Screenings of the film at the University of Edinburgh were cancelled in December 2022 and April 2023 after more than 100 attendees were blocked from attending the screenings by protests, the tribunal heard. The local UCU branch?argued at the time that the film was ¡°a clear attack on trans people¡¯s identities¡± and not in line with the university¡¯s dignity and respect policy, and the tribunal heard that the film¡¯s title was a ¡°dog whistle¡± to ¡°to stoke outrage¡±.?

While O¡¯Neill and Wayne claimed in the hearing on 31 March that the union and Jo Grady, general secretary of the UCU, had treated them detrimentally?because of their gender-critical beliefs, Judge Laidler refuted the suggestion that the case could be justified on academic freedom grounds.?

Accepting evidence from the union, which noted that the majority of the film¡¯s participants were not academics, the judge said the film was ¡°not an academic work published by the claimants in relation to their respective specialisms¡± and ¡°contained the views of a number of people who [held] the same views as the claimants¡±.?

O¡¯Neill and Wayne claimed that various social media posts by the UCU branch equated to harassment, but Laidler noted that in many of the posts ¨C including one that read ¡°solidarity to trans and non-binary staff and students today and every day¡± ¨C they were not mentioned by name, the posts were not directed towards them, and that they did ¡°not identify what the detriment to them¡± was.

The judge added it was ¡°relevant¡± that O¡¯Neill and Wayne were not academics at the University of Edinburgh or members of?its UCU branch because they ¡°remain involved in the branch at their universities and are free to vote and stand in elections¡±.?

Senior noted that UCU is ¡°a broad church¡± and members have ¡°a wide range of diverse views and beliefs on a whole host of issues¡±.?

¡°The tribunal very carefully noted that UCU Edinburgh was not objecting to the beliefs of the claimants, who are also UCU members, they were protesting against a film which it believed presented misinformation about trans and non-binary people and that was damaging to trans and non-binary staff and students,¡± she continued.?

¡°It is welcome to have this positive decision at the start of Pride month, and at a time when trans and non-binary people feel under attack. This decision demonstrates that trade unions and others can stand up for trans rights and trans inclusivity, and our union is committed to continuing to promote a more equal and safe world for all people regardless of their gender identity¡±.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com