Mick Hartley

We've been here before with Jo Phoenix, after she won her case against the Open University for unfair dismissal after a campaign of harassment against her for her "transphobic" – ie sex realist – views.

And here we go again:

A law lecturer who was sacked by the Open University after expressing gender-critical beliefs has been handed a payout from the institution.

Dr Almut Gadow was dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2022 after she criticised changes to the curriculum based on gender identity in an online forum.

She claimed the university was introducing requirements to “indoctrinate students in gender identity theory”.

The lecturer, who taught law at the university for almost a decade, claimed she had raised concerns about new teaching requirements, including making students use offenders’ preferred pronouns.

She took the university to an employment tribunal alleging she was “harassed, discriminated against, and unfairly dismissed because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom”.

The Open University has now settled with Dr Gadow before a hearing was scheduled to take place later this month, The Telegraph has learnt.

The OU were all gung-ho and ready for the fight, but now, suddenly,….they're not.

It amounts to an about-turn for the university, which previously told The Telegraph it would “vigorously defend” itself before a judge.

The institution also accused the academic of making “spurious allegations” about the circumstances surrounding her dismissal and said it looked forward to presenting its own version of events at an employment tribunal.

In a statement, Dr Gadow accused the university of agreeing “to pay me an undisclosable amount of money to avoid a public airing of the facts”.

“After long claiming it could not wait for the truth to come out in court, that it would fight this case ‘vigorously’ and ‘robustly’ all the way, the OU [Open University] – while making no admission as to liability – has resolved the matter by way of payment of an undisclosable sum of money.

“Why, the OU faithful will be asking, has the university decided to pay me an undisclosable amount of money to avoid a public airing of the facts, if what I said was not true?”

In a statement provided to Times Higher Education in 2023, the Open University said: “Since being dismissed, Almut Gadow has made a series of offensive and spurious allegations online which we reject in the strongest of terms. We welcome the opportunity the tribunal hearing provides to present our evidence about the facts of this case”.

And what were these "offensive and spurious allegations"?

Dr Gadow had alleged that the university’s equality, diversion and inclusion (EDI) department announced plans to “incorporate its political ideologies” across the curriculum in the 2021-22 academic year.

She claimed she voiced concerns that a criminal lawyer’s role “is to present facts” and that “sex is a relevant fact for offences involving perpetrators’ and/or victims’ bodies”.

The academic also argued that “no offender should be allowed to dictate the language of his case in a way which masks relevant facts”.

Dr Gadow said she was told that her posts on the online staff forum amounted to “serious insubordination” because she had been told it was not the place for such discussions.

She was informed by the university that her persistence in posting comments on issues relating to gender identity, paedophilia, and sex offending amounted to “serious bullying and harassment”.

The content of several of her posts was a breach of the university’s transgender staff policy because they may “create an environment in the forum that isn’t inclusive, trans-friendly, or respectful”, Dr Gadow was also told.

In a statement following the settlement from the Open University, Dr Gadow claimed her experience illustrated that EDI policies at universities often place undue pressure on staff and teaching.

“Much needs to be corrected in this area, where EDIdeology dictates the content of OU teaching at the expense of academic freedom. My case has highlighted the extent to which EDI-fied and ‘liberated’ curricula violate not only the university’s obligations to uphold academic freedom but the human rights of its members,” she said.

It would perhaps be too much to suggest that they realised she was right. More likely, they decided they didn't want their dirty washing aired in public.