My name is Almut Gadow. For almost 10 years, I taught law at the Open University. I was dismissed for questioning new requirements to indoctrinate students in gender identity theory, in ways which, I felt, distorted equality law and normalised child sexual exploitation.

I am bringing an employment tribunal claim arguing that I was harassed, discriminated against, and unfairly dismissed because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom, and that this breached human rights protections for academic free expression.

Who am I? 

I grew up in a family of thought criminals. My grandfather was an undergraduate when the Nazis cleansed academia of wrongthinkers and their ideas. Rather than continue at an ideologically compliant university, he completed his studies at an illicit underground institution.  He was then repeatedly tried for speech crimes and eventually sentenced to death by hanging ‘for destructive behaviour through statements in sermons and in dealing with [Nazi] party material’. 

I see free speech as a distinguishing feature between democracy and totalitarianism, not a battleground between left and right.  My family has seen both German dictatorships, the fascist and the socialist, right and left, suppress speech and purge academia of dissent and dissenters.  I hope my daughter can one day go to a university that does not eliminate wrongthink(ers). 

My story

In 2021/22 the Open University’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion department announced plans to incorporate its political ideologies into ‘all current curriculum’.  The law degree on which I taught was redesigned around a ‘core theme’ of ‘liberating the curriculum’, reflecting these ideologies.  

Criminal law tutors were told that, to ‘liberate the curriculum’, our classes now had to introduce diverse gender identities and teach students to use offenders’ preferred pronouns. I questioned if incorporating gender identity theory might be an unnecessary distraction or even unwise. I described gender theory as hotly contested, and as recently developed in wealthy Western countries. I pointed out that (not) believing in gender identity is a protected religious or philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010, and said law tutorials are no place to promote one's beliefs.

I also highlighted some of the implications of describing offenders according to self-identified gender in our work. I said a criminal lawyer’s role is to present facts, that sex is a relevant fact for offences involving perpetrators’ and/or victims’ bodies, and that no offender should be allowed to dictate the language of his case in a way which masks relevant facts.   I said an assailant’s language about himself and his offence should not automatically be adopted over his victim’s, and that lawyers and courts sometimes need to describe offenders in terms with which the latter might not agree – calling the innocent-identifying perpetrator ‘guilty’, or the trans-identifying male ‘he’.

When I raised these questions, in an online forum for law tutors to discuss what they teach, management had no answers.  Months later, they were cited as reasons for my dismissal. Managers spuriously alleged that my ‘unreasonable questions’ had created an environment which ‘isn’t inclusive, trans-friendly or respectful’, thus violating the transgender staff policy and codes of conduct. In fact, I had broken no lawful rule by probing the academic soundness of what I was expected to teach. 

I further incurred the wrath of the curriculum liberators when I asked them to define their key concepts such as ‘LGBTQ+’. It had become apparent to me that some treated ‘minor attraction’ (i.e. paedophilia) as part of the ‘diverse sexualities and gender identities’ Open University law teaching now seeks to ‘centre’.  The criminal law module culminated in an assignment in which students had to discuss a relationship between an adult and a minor. Students would gain marks by describing child and adult as each other’s ‘boyfriends’, but lose marks if they considered whether the adult was grooming the child or committing a sexual offence.

My request for clarification was spuriously described as further misconduct. Curriculum liberators complained that it had made them feel undermined, harassed, bullied and reputationally damaged. In fact, asking colleagues to explain core concepts of their output is just part of everyday academic work, but curriculum liberators were unable to do so here.

My legal case 

Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom.  My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

‘Academic free expression’ is at the heart of my tribunal case.  This concept, set out in a string of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, encapsulates how article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects academic freedom – not least by prohibiting universities from penalising academics for questioning our institutions or curricula.  UK courts have yet to properly consider ECtHR case law on academic free expression. In seeking judicial guidance on this from an English employment tribunal, my case can hopefully entrench these protections in domestic law.

I will also argue that valuing academic freedom is, in itself, a protected belief under the Equality Act. Establishing this in law could protect many other academics whose careers are threatened by the rising tide of intolerance on UK campuses.

Why I need your help 

I am crowdfunding to support my employment tribunal claim against the Open University. Akua Reindorf KC, whose name has become almost synonymous with her ground-breaking work on the academic freedom of gender critical academics, will represent me in the tribunal. However, a legal challenge of this type requires an enormous amount of work, which needs to be funded.

The likely total cost of funding this claim up to trial will be around £250,000. Rather than raise the full amount now, I will ‘stretch’ the target as the claim proceeds. This will allow me to provide accurate cost estimates, and will avoid raising more money than I need in order to fund the claim.

Although litigation can be unpredictable, I plan to raise funds at three milestones:

• Milestone one: £70,000 to cover the cost of the preliminary hearing, disclosure of documents and preparation of a trial bundle.
• Milestone two: £90,000 covering the drafting of witness statements, potential applications to the Tribunal and for contingency costs in the run-up to trial.
• Milestone three: £90,000 for the cost of trial including preparation.

All figures include VAT and estimated counsel’s fees. Once the initial target is met, funds raised will be transferred to the Free Speech Union which will hold the money in trust for the payment of fees as they arise. Any unused funds will be returned to CrowdJustice in accordance with its terms. I will update this page throughout to inform you of the progress of my case.

If you can, please consider donating, or sharing this page. 

This is a very important case, with potentially far-reaching repercussions for the University sector. It demonstrates the link between highly ideological, terminologically vague Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policies - which are rife across the sector - and acts of discrimination against University members for their lawful beliefs. It also shows how University pedagogy is being unreasonably constrained by a narrow set of shallow ideas, high on emotion and low on evidence, at the behest of activist groups. A positive outcome for the claimant in this case will be of great significance, not just to University staff, but to the young minds they teach in future. 
Dr Kathleen Stock, author of Material Girls

Donating to Almut’s case is an investment in a more free and tolerant future for UK academia. Dismissal of permanent academic staff for voicing their ideas is rare and very serious. This case provides the best opportunity yet to establish a strong legal precedent in favour of academic free expression that will protect all UK academics under threat because of their lawful views, especially those who believe in the reality of biological sex.
Bryn Harris, Chief Legal Counsel, Free Speech Union