I have lost my legal case against the University of Bristol. The University was able to successfully argue that they do not owe a duty of care to students who, like me, face intimidation and violent threats from trans activist students and staff. The court found that in the enactment of their internal policies, the University did not act unlawfully.

The judgment, nonetheless, confirms that I was indeed the victim of the “violent, threatening, intimidating behaviour or language” by trans activist students, and that, there was a “failure to respect the right of others to freedom of belief and speech,” (my right to both). In his decision, HHJ Judge Ralton acknowledged that I was threatened with physical violence, and finds that “provocative, offensive and shocking speech is likely to be legally permissible whilst speech threatening physical violence is not.” 

Regarding the intimidation I received while at the University of Bristol, HHJ Ralton also stated:

“Generally, it is not for me in this case to pass judgment on the acceptability of the things said and done and whether the line beyond acceptable free speech was crossed but I do observe that the threat or use of violence such as the threat of throwing eggs or a punch obviously crosses that line and amounts to abhorrent and deplorable conduct.”

HHJ Ralton also found that the University took an “excessively long time” to “properly respond to [my] safety concerns”.  The University did not accept any of my concerns as genuine before we made it to court. The Local Stage Outcome and their final decision both accused me of not providing any evidence of bullying and harassment. This opened the possibility that I had made up everything you now know. For years, I have carried the stigma of being branded a liar. I am therefore pleased that HHJ Ralton has found that, despite the way the University treated me internally, once we all made it to court and with the glare of the media on my legal case, “the Defendant appears to have accepted [my complaints] as genuine”. While I have known the truth all along, I cannot emphasise enough how at peace I feel knowing that this dark cloud that has hung over my head every day, is now gone.

It took a tremendous amount of tenacity and determination to bring this case to trial, but I felt resolute that the public must be made aware that this is how academic institutions are treating students like me when nobody is watching. This resolve remains unwavering. When I was at my lowest and the pressure from the University was most intense, they offered me money to leave my PhD programme and not bring a claim forward. I wonder how many women have been silenced and their mistreatment gone unacknowledged.

I did not deserve years of abuse for daring to chair a feminist meeting or for defending sex-based feminism. Nobody does. No student should ever have to incur a psychiatric injury over violent and threatening behaviour by their colleagues, and the byzantine policies and procedures of academic institutions that are meant to protect everyone equally.

Indeed, the Judge confirmed that he was “persuaded that the Claimant was not carefully informed and guided about the processes that would be undertaken to progress her complaint(s) and the information and guidance that were provided were delivered in somewhat piecemeal fashion.” He also said that “the Defendant did not set out properly to the Claimant its strategy of resolving the complaint and somewhat left the Claimant ‘in the lurch’” and that my “complaints could have been progressed in a much better fashion”.

I want to apologise to the public, particularly to my donors, for failing to achieve our desired outcome. My lawyers and I did our best under challenging circumstances and impossible timelines, but ultimately the Judge did not agree with our interpretation of the fact at hand. I am grateful to my barrister Alice de Coverley, and Amara Ahmad and Peter Daly who acted as my solicitors. I could not ask for a more principled legal team, and I trust they did their best despite the sustained obstacles that we faced throughout this litigation.

The most difficult aspect of this process has been doing this on my own, while my family is thousands of miles away from me. I took a principled position that would be challenging for all of us, but they rallied around me regardless. I want to thank my entire family whose unwavering love and care has given me the emotional stability and psychological fortitude to remain grounded and optimistic throughout this difficult period.

Thank you to the Centre for Gender and Violence Research. Particularly, my supervisors Dr Emma Williamson, Dr Natasha Mulvihill and Dr Marianne Hester for their steadfast solidarity, understanding and continued faith in me and in my academic potential.

Thank you to all of my supporters and everyone who has sent messages of kindness and encouragement. This includes women’s rights organisations, old friends I had lost touch with, fellow students, professors and university staff members, and countless members of the public who have reached out online or while walking down the streets to express their solidarity.

Character is forged through adversity. While this outcome was unexpected, there is no regret, no anger and no sadness within my heart about this. Standing up to bullies and the academic institutions that protect them will always be the right decision. Moreover, there is a very big world out there full of hardship, unfairness but also full of hope. I have a very long life and career ahead of me. There will be increasingly higher-stakes victories and setbacks awaiting me along the way, and I look forward to meeting my future head on.

Being funded by the public, this legal case belongs to all of you. But today, there is one thing that truly belongs only to me. And that is a deep sense of pride, respect, and admiration for the woman I have become over the course of these very difficult years. The risk to me is not over: I have lost my case, and I may now have to meet the University’s legal costs. To risk the loss of my academic dreams, financial ruin and reputational damage is a frightening prospect for anyone, and especially at my age. But I am glad that when the moment of truth came, I took these risks in order to do the right thing and object to injustice.

Best wishes, 

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well. 

As you know, we were in court from February 7th-14th, 2022. At the end of the trial, the judge informed us that he will aim to have his judgement ready within the next three months, but that at that point, if he needed more time he could request an extension. 

We have received no news from the Court yet. Many people have been asking me, so I imagine lots of you will want to know the outcome of our legal case against the University of Bristol. I really want to know too, but I'm not worried, or stressed or anxious about it. The outcome will be ready, when it is ready. And if the judge needs extra time, then that is perfectly understandable. The last two months on this litigation (December and January) where thoroughly horrible for me, due to the conduct of the Defendant and their insistence on making this process as difficult as possible for me. So all my sleepless nights (and there were a lot) were before the trial, and now I feel at peace that my legal team and I worked very hard to ensure we presented our case as best as we could.

You can read my Witness Statement here: https://www.raquelrosariosanchez.com/witness-statement 

You can find the Closing Submissions, the Witness Statement from Dr Emma Williamson and our Skeleton Argument on this page: https://www.raquelrosariosanchez.com/legal-documents 

That being said, I still have a lot of pending legal bills. The bulk of the work for the case took place towards the end, hence why it accumulated. December and January were extremely busy and intense for my lawyers and for me. Please consider donating again, and sharing this page with people in your circles who could contribute as well. I really need your help to meet the stretch target.

I will keep you posted regarding any news from the Court, as soon as I can. And again, thank you for all your support, 

Raquel

Ps. Here's an interview I did last night with Andrew Doyle for his programme Free Speech Nation on GB News. The interview focused on my legal case and broader issues about academia.

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well. 

Our trial begins tomorrow (february 7th will be a reading day for the judge). Our case is mainly about sex discrimination and negligence. We are claiming the University of Bristol has a number of policies and practices that prioritize trans activism over women's rights. These policies are particularly harmful for women, because it is overwhelmingly women who campaign for sex-based rights. Our claims are:

• Negligence
• Indirect Sex Discrimination
• Harassment Based on Sex
• Unlawful Victimisation
• Breach of Contract

I want to emphasise that there is no certainty in legal cases and that I could lose my case but that I believe it is important for the public to get clarity on these matters. This clarity can only be obtained through a legal judgement. I am not the first woman who has been bullied, intimidated and gaslighted on this issue, and until we shed more light on it, I will not be the last.

I feel reassured that I have a truly magnificent team of lawyers specialising in education law and sex discrimination to represent me, including: Alice de Coverley from 3 Paper Buildings as my barrister, and Peter Daly and Amara Ahmad from Doyle Clayton as my solicitors. I trust them completely on this matter, and I will never be able to thank them enough for their thoughtful counsel and support throughout such a difficult time.

Unfortunately, I will have to stretch the target one final time. If you look around, the costs for my case will be equivalent to everyone else standing up for sex-based rights but I’ve felt really uncomfortable asking people for money just to ask people for money, or just to say “look how much I’ve raised.” So, since we launched, I have put off stretching the target until it became absolutely necessary for each stage of the case (ie. once it became essential to the work the lawyers were actually doing at the time). The countdown on Crowdjustice will renew and add 30 days until we meet the target so there’s still time to contribute and share this page.

Once these documents are available to the public, I will upload my Witness Statement on this link. And I will also upload our Particulars of Claim, Skeleton Argument and Final Submissions on this page. It was extremely challenging for me to be so open and vulnerable writing my Witness Statement because I prefer to be far more reserved, but I understand how important it is for this legal process that I was as transparent as possible so now I am particularly keen for you to read my Witness Statement, if you can and are interested.

We will be asking the judge for permission to live tweet the trial because the public has a right to see justice, and if we are allowed, the hashtag will be #RaquelvBristolUni on Twitter and the main account will be @TribunalTweets. But other members of the public are welcome to livetweet if they want to. You can learn more about me personally, about my work and about our legal case by listening to this podcast for The Critic with feminist author Julie Bindel.

Many people are asking me, so I just want to let you know that on the eve of the trial: I feel alright. I feel grounded, centred and resolute that the public must be made aware that this is how academic institutions are treating their female students when nobody is watching them. But I have to admit that I also feel a deep sense of sadness that it has come to this. I spent years pleading and pleading with the University to avoid this, until things became irrevocably broken. This is not the life that I set out to live when I left the Dominican Republic in late 2017, and these are not the experiences I wanted to have in Bristol.

But I am grateful to you both for the very kind words and for your donations. We would not be here if it wasn't because you saw the problem and wanted to make this legal case possible. This trial will take place because of you. And while this will undoubtedly be a daunting experience for me, as the Claimant, I now know that I am not alone. I have all of you and we are all in this together. 

Thank you!

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Happy New Year.

I can see now why the University of Bristol has been so paranoid about providing disclosure. And in a couple of weeks, you will be able to see it as well. While I feel hurt and disappointed, I feel adamant that the public must be made aware that this is how academic institutions are treating feminist students when nobody is watching. I want to let you know that, last Thursday, we held a positive and useful Pre-Trial Hearing in which we were able to secure our in person trial for this matter from 7th-14th February, 2022 at the Bristol County Court.

The University has behaved appallingly all the way through. For example, during our last hearing on November 17th, the judge ordered the University to provide disclosure by December 8th. Towards the end of December, they were still making excuses to avoid doing this (the third court order they were ignoring). They finally provided disclosure on December 23rd, during a period of time when we had previously informed them that all my lawyers would be unavailable. The University dumped over 10,000 pages of disclosure on me at a time when one of my lawyers was on maternity leave, another had COVID and the third one was out of the country on holiday. They choose that date knowing I had to exchange my Witness Statement merely days later. This is the kind of unhelpful behaviour that they have displayed since we launched this case on June 2020. On November 17th, the judge told the Defendant's barrister that "the University has not covered themselves in glory" and then she repeated that statement again, for emphasis. Rather than becoming more sensible, they decided to become increasingly cantankerous. 

The one thing the University of Bristol has succeeded so far is in blowing up our budget. They mostly refuse to cooperate with us and oftentimes don't even respond to our emails. Unfortunately, my lawyers have had to go above and beyond to get around the University's intransigence and that has means a lot of increased costs. This past month and a half has been unnecessarily horrible for me, with extreme stress and countless sleepless nights. So you can't imagine how pleased I felt last week when I heard the judge confirm that our trial will take place next month. But right now, I am worried that by blowing up our budget, the University may succeed in denying my access to justice. If all of you donated £5 to £10 pounds (or however much you feel comfortable donating), this concern could be resolved quickly. Please consider pledging once again. I am determined that all of us get a court judgment on this matter and most importantly, that what has happened to me does not happen again to other women in academia.

Best, 

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well.

We had a very successful hearing on November 17th. It went on for longer than expected (we ended being with the judge for nearly 3 hours) which felt draining and nerve-wrecking for me but it all generated a positive outcome for us.

Our trial will take place from February 7th to February 14th, 2022. My lawyers reached out to the University countless times so we could collaborate and find dates suitable for all the witnesses, lawyers and parties but they refused to even acknowledge our emails. Having to constantly chase them represented an unnecessary expense for us and, I believe one of the purposes was that, without their dates, my case would be thrown way into the future (the other purpose would be to increase our costs). For example, into September or November 2022. I had truly resigned myself to this eventuality so I was surprised that last week the Court decided the dates for us and a lot sooner than I anticipated.

Most of the University's submission on November 17th related to anonymity and secrecy. They sought orders from the Court to further anonymise their disclosure (which the still haven't provided) and they wanted the judge to order that nobody can access legal documents without making an application to the Court. The judge refused both requests citing the principle of open justice, and reminded the University that the Supreme Court ruled that the public has a right to see justice so no requirement to seal the documents would be made for my case.

You have to wonder why is the University so absolutely paranoid about disclosure and why they are so anxious about the eventuality that the public will get to read Court documents about my case (ie. about the University of Bristol's treatment of me). What is it that they are hiding?

Having caused endless obstructions and delays by not releasing their disclosure, the University told the judge that it would take them too long to do it so they wanted the trial dates (established right at the beginning of the hearing) moved. The judge said, and this was beautiful: "I am not moving the trial dates. There have been enormous delays. Those instructing you must get their act together and get ready for the trial." And then she dropped the mic and left. Just kidding, but you can imagine how happy I felt to finally hear that!

We had to make three separate applications to the Court relating to disclosure problems that we have encountered with the University, and they had one application over something that was resolved prior to Nov 17th. While the Court did not grant us the Unless Order we were seeking, the judge did make a comprehensive order that included our concerns. I am particularly happy that the judge considered that all our applications have been reasonable and were due to the drawn out disclosure issues. Therefore, we were awarded cost for all three of our applications. Meanwhile, the Court did not awarded the the Defendant cost for theirs and told the University to go pay for their own application. 

I feel very happy that during our November 17th hearing we finally managed to get the dates for our trial, which has been worrying me for such a long time, and I am also happy that the judge said this case was "an extremely important case." 

That being said, February 7th, 2022 is almost here. Less than two months and a half away. That means there is a lot of work to be done (as in, A LOT) in a very short amount of time. The University has been increasing our cost unnecessarily and, while we may recover that after the trial, at the moment we really need to raise enough funds to see this case through. Please, if you can share with your friends, families and colleagues, and spread the word on social media, I would really appreciate it. 

As always, I am so grateful to my lawyers for their hard work. Particularly to my barrister, Alice de Coverley, who was on fire on Nov 17th. It has been a challenging couple of months with no end in sight but now everything feels clearer and near. Having a trial so soon feels daunting but I am ready. 

Thank you all for your kindness and support throughout.

Best, 

Raquel

Ps. I was featured on Woman's Hour on my birthday, where I discussed our case. You can listen to the BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour interview with journalist Emma Barnett (35-06 to 51-41) on the BBC website. An acquaintance volunteered a full transcript of the segment so you can also read the interview on this PDF. 

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well.

We have two hour court hearing on November 17th. Here is a broad update in the meantime.

• Previous Unless Order and Disclosure Issues

The judge will go over a number of applications made by both sides, including a second Unless Order that our lawyers have had to file against the University of Bristol. Most of the applications have to do with disclosure problems we have encountered and how the University's failures on this litigation affect (I believe intentionally and deliberately) our timetable.

The Defendant used some shenanigans to preempt our first Unless Order from being granted but it appears this time, instead of pretending to collaborate, the University will straight-up tell the judge that they don't feel like complying with the Directions Order that was already granted by another judge way back in April 2021. Our case launched in June 2020, we are in October 2021 and the University is still putting an active fight to prevent information regarding their treatment of me from being disclosed in court (and eventually in the public domain). What is it that they are hiding? Why are they so frightened of all this coming out?

Obviously, our side is an open book. My lawyers are brilliant. I am very happy with all three of them and I am confident in their expertise and efforts. They always comply with anything that the court asks of us and we are transparent about everything we are doing. At this point, there is absolutely nothing (not a single document or piece of evidence) that the University of Bristol has requested from me that I have refused to provide. So on November 17th, all of us (their lawyers, my lawyers, the judge and I) will sit there for two full hours focusing on the failures of the University to provide their disclosure.

• "Gender Wars" in Academia Debate

Aside from that, as you may be aware, there is finally an ongoing national conversation about the bullying, harassment and intimidation that feminists are being subjected to in academia. During this weekend's FiLiA 2021 Conference, I chaired a panel with students Diana Barrera Moreno (Women Talk Back), Nicole Jones (XX Feminist Netword) and professors Jo Phoenix (Open University) and Selina Todd (Oxford University) about the "gender wars" in academia. The panel focused on the grassroots resistance from students and professors pushing back against gender orthodoxy in UK Universities.

While she wasn't present, at the end of our panel, our hundreds of attendees gave a standing ovation to Professor Kathleen Stock. At the University of Sussex, Prof Stock has been on the receiving end of a campaign of intimidation from students, staff and her own union who object to her feminist work based in material reality. (We also had a blast dancing to Madonna's 'Material Girls' in her honour an the FiLiA female-only dance party!) You can listen to the FiLiA podcast I did with her about her work and the targeting she has received here.

Like Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock has been urged by the Police to get bodyguards to accompany her when she gives lectures on campus because their institution has allowed this toxic climate to reach a boiling point in which students feel entitled to attack them for her entirely lawful (and common sense) views. That is unacceptable and it is the direct result of the culture of indifference and/or complicity taken by university managements that have enabled their wannabe despots to abuse feminists on campus. 

• The Sunday Times feature

Yesterday, The Sunday Times published an article titled "200 academics tell of death threats and abuse as battle rages for free speech" featuring the voices of feminists researchers who have been on the receiving end of intimidation. I am grateful that they reached out and included my voice on it because sometimes people forget that students are oftentimes the first to be targeted by their peers, are therefore more susceptible to peer-pressure and, as early career researchers, oftentimes feel more compelled to conform so we can have an opportunity at having a career.

Regarding the campaign of intimidation and abuse, including the years-long targeting by balaclava-wearing students at Bristol University, I said to The Sunday Times: “Most people who are subject to abuse by trans activists stay silent, because if you file a complaint you undergo the campaign of threats I have experienced. I want a legal judgment from a court that could serve as a deterrent to all universities that the hounding of feminists in academia is unacceptable and unlawful.”

Nobody should go through bullying, harassment and intimidation so my heart goes out to Kathleen. These past few weeks have been challenging because it has been surreal to witness this national reckoning over something that I myself endured (on a smaller scale) starting almost four years ago. Much of that time, the University lawyers coerced me to maintain confidentiality so I couldn't speak about what was happening. I felt immensely alone. It is dehumanising that I was made to go through that a few weeks after I started my PhD programme and as a newly-arrived immigrant in a country where I had no family and I didn't know a single person other than my supervisor. I hope Kathleen feels less alone but all this has to stop. 

All those women in our academic panel and Prof Stock need better support and to have their already established rights upheld. Yet university after university after university and even unions, have folded under the pressure of trans activists bullies. In our case, Bristol University is happy to waste over a year of the court's time including the two hours on the November 17th hearing resorting to obfuscation and cowardly shenanigans to justify the toxic climate they have already created. 

If you have time, please watch the first speech Kathleen Stock gave about this matter for the feminist campaigning organisation Woman's Place UK, titled 'A Woman's Place is Turning the Tide' in Brighton on July 28th, 2018. Like all the women in our FiLiA academics panel, you will see a thoughtful, sensitive and powerful feminist researcher who has endured too much, for too long, unnecessarily:  

I will provide more information after the November 17th court hearing.

Best, 

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well.

We had a CCMC on 5 August. It was mostly focused on budgeting issues and other matters. The short summary is that our legal case is going well and I am very happy with how my lawyers and I are approaching everything. Since you are a donor with an interest in the case, I'll use bullet points to expand on some important issues you may want to know:

• CCMC on 5 August 2021

The hearing was 40 minutes long. I was represented by my superb barrister and one of my brilliant solicitors was also present. Both women have done remarkable work and I am so grateful to have them on board. The University was represented by their barrister, an adult man who has decided to highlight the following paragraph as a professional achievement: "Paul deals with civil litigation against local authorities in relation to all sorts of powers. His main body of work in this area currently relates to claims brought by victims of childhood abuse and neglect who allege that social services authorities should have removed them from the source of harm earlier."

Our cost budget for the claim was a set sum of £107,434, allowing for the pre-action costs, disclosure, expert reports and other matters that have already been incurred and everything we are estimated to incur. The trial itself will be the biggest sum of money at about £18,000. 

Remember that we only have 2 witnesses (including me), while the University has previously said they would have up to 9 people testifying against me. I invite them to bring 100: these sort of scare tactics make me feel increasingly confident in our evidence.

• Disclosure and Unless Order

As I have mentioned before, the University has throughout refused to provide disclosure. We did ours ages ago, but our lawyers had to spend both June and July incurring unnecessary costs asking the Defendant to provide theirs. At the last CMC we made a specific application and on 16 April 2021, were granted a Directions Order so the University should have complied. Instead, they ignored the court order, withheld disclosure, failed to serve a signed disclosure statement and made our lawyers spend two months requesting something that any Defendant who was confident in their case would volunteer willingly. 

Because of the paragraph above, we were left with no other choice than to apply for an Unless Order to force their hand. It stated that unless they serve comprehensive disclosure by a set date, the Defendant’s defence would be struck out, judgment would be entered in our favour, and the Defendant would be permitted to take no further part in the proceedings. Eventually, the University complied with a section of this but we still have to make more applications for specific disclosure because there are still massive gaps. Everything relating to this matter could have been avoided but the University's approach is to make everything as difficult as possible. I can't think of any reason why. 

• Nondisclosure Agreements (NDAs) discussion

Recently, the feminist organisation FiLiA published a podcast I recorded with Dr Julie Macfarlane focusing on her groundbreaking work as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence and institutional abuse. Her campaigning resulted in a paradigm shift for Canadian courts. She has been selected as one of Canada’s 25 Most Influential Lawyers and in 2019, she received the Order of Canada. Professor Macfarlane recently published Going Public: A Survivors Journey from Grief to Action. 

This September, Dr Macfarlane, along with Zelda Perkins (a campaigner and the first woman to break her NDA with convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein), will launch a global campaign to ban NDAs. In our podcast, we discussed how an NDA represents a signed piece of paper used to gag victims and whistleblowers, but that a lot of silencing takes place through coercion. For example, around the same time I went public about this matter, in an exclusive for The Sunday Times, I had an email at the top of my inbox from the University's Director of Legal Services with the subject line "CONFIDENTIAL" (her caps).

The university gagged me for almost two years. Particularly, during the time that was most difficult for me: when I was being bullied, harassed and institutionally gaslighted as a newly arrived immigrant student in the UK. An array of the University's in-house lawyers insisted that I couldn't speak about what was happening, coercing both me and my supervisors to maintain confidentiality or else their "investigation" would be ruined. I am stating this because discussions around the corrosive nature of NDAs should remember that point and because a dear friend of mine recently commented that "it's great that the University has never gagged you" and I want to publicly disavow them of this delusion in case this myth was commonplace. I spoke out because I decided enough is enough. If it was up to the University of Bristol, I would still be silently traumatised or better yet, back in Santo Domingo.

• Dr Anthony Maden

As you know, I am suing the University of Bristol for negligence, sex discrimination, unlawful victimisation, among other claims. In order to assess the negligence claim, both parties are required to submit expert reports. In Spring 2021, the University told the Court that their expert would be Dr Anthony Maden. We replied giving them an opportunity to reconsider this based on some elements of our case. According to some figures, there are at least 12,000 psychiatric experts currently active. Nevertheless, soon after, the University unceremoniously dismissed all our formal concerns by informing us that the one and only psychiatric expert in the whole United Kingdom who they though could help them win their case against me was Dr Maden. 

Coincidentally, this matter came up in the FiLiA Podcast with Dr Julie Macfarlane above. More information about this issue can be found here.

• The University's Sanctions Against Me

Last month, the University made a unilateral decision to instigate a punitive process against me over what they consider to be an unsatisfactory lack of academic progress. I had zero input on this decision-making process and I am disappointed they unilaterally reached this outcome. As the University is well aware, there are tangible reasons outside of the scope of this legal case that explain why any student would struggle, and most importantly, there are issues directly relating to this litigation that legally compel them to make reasonable adjustment to help me so that I can successfully move forward, yet it has become evident that concern about the well being of students stops with me. At the same time that they were spending two months trying to bamboozle my lawyers and an actual Court by playing stupid games with an unsigned disclosure paper, they were refusing me any help or support. Apart from being potentially illegal and discriminatory, constituting further evidence for my case, I found this point to be aggravating.

As I mentioned in this Spanish interview from 7 June 2020, from the moment I filed my complaint, the University of Bristol has used our institutional relationship as weapon against me. I told journalist Ana de Blas, that at different points they have used a combination of threats, emotional blackmail and retaliation to punish me for bringing this case forward. I am not afraid of these people and I'm impervious to intimidation (hence why we're here). However, it is disheartening to see firsthand how the University of Bristol treats students who have the temerity to follow their own policies and reporting wrongdoing.

• Is my legal case against the University of Bristol important? 

During the CCMC on 5 August, the University's barrister went on a stream of consciousness about how unimportant my case was because, he said, it didn't have a high monetary value. You will have noticed that the word "damages" does not appear anywhere on this CrowdJustice text, interview or any message I have ever written. That's on purpose. I didn't start litigation with an eye on money and I would find any insinuation of the sort to be immoral, unethical and deeply offensive. In my view and even though I obviously don't want to lose, a negative judgement is preferable to no judgement at all because this case helps clarify the position I, and every other student experiencing what I have experienced, are in. 

Nevertheless, the University's barrister tried to convince the judge of the lack of importance of our case based on how little, according to him, I could claim back in damages and costs if I were to win. I expected nothing less from him so I was not surprised by his monologue. However, I have been taken aback recently by a number of conversations I've had with people "on our side" who tried to convince me of the exact same point that Mr Stagg was arguing to the judge. I won't expand on this but I've found that lack of confidence and support from people I used to trust to be unexpected and hurtful. 

So I went into that CCMC not feeling particularly great and somewhat deflated. However, in the mother of all plot twists, after my barrister challenged every argument the University's lawyer made, the judge said that my case was important not because of the quantum I could recover but because of the nature of the case and its wide-reaching ramifications. Before August 5th, if I had to make a list of who I would expect to make that point, a judge would not even be on the list so that was a very pleasant surprise. As a donor, I hope you find that as reassuring as I have.

As always, thank you to my three lawyers for their impressive legal expertise, thorough support and for always advising me based on what they consider to be my best interests. I'd like to thank my family and loved ones for their unwavering encouragement. Even through we are 6,846 kilometres apart, I would not be able to take this on if I didn't have the emotional stability they provide. 

Thank you to all of you who have sent encouragement and donated to the case. Despite the fact that this update is very long and kind of grim, I feel very happy with where we are right now and I think we should all feel positive moving forward. 

Best, 

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well. 

I have now received a document from the University of Bristol. I call it "a document" because it was supposed to be disclosure but what they sent is decidedly not. They were due to provide me a list of documents they hold which I don't have but are relevant to my case. This means email correspondence, letters and internal documents between people within the University who were involved in my case, including everything related to the Student Complaint and Disciplinary Process. After saying they would rely on some articles of the EHRC to prevent me from accessing this information, my legal team specifically applied (and were granted) a court order mandating them to fully disclose their documents to me.

I produced a detailed Electronic Questionnaire listing all the people who might hold relevant information and the key search terms. I have already provided them with all the relevant information they need from me, both in my Letter Before Claim and prior to our deadline, because I am keen to move forward in a manner that is as transparent and thorough as possible. 

Yesterday, they decided to send me, as "disclosure", a long list mostly consisting of... my own emails that I wrote with my own hands to various people about this matter. And emails that were sent to me (which I already hold because they were sent to me) or emails in which I was cc'd (which I also obviously hold because I was cc'd on them). These emails have been a part of our evidence from the very beginning and, obviously, the point of this bit in the litigation is to submit documents that I don't have and would need, not documents that I myself wrote therefore I've obviously always had.

Words escape me. 

In the interest of fairness, I have to clarify that the University would argue that, technically, they did not breach the court order by being late in submitting this long list of my own emails. They would say they submitted it to the Court quite literally at the exact deadline and that it was my lawyers who took a bit to forward their long list of my own emails to me. So I want to thank them for submitting in time mostly my own emails, which I already have because I myself wrote them with my own hands, and calling it "their disclosure".

I didn't understand how it was possible for a party to behave this way in litigation, but one of my lawyers helpfully explained to me this morning that these dynamics are not unusual with certain types of defendants. There are some steps I can take in the meantime to avoid having to waste time and funding (which is obviously what the University wants for our side), but the bottom line is that if they continue to withhold important information that they have been ordered to hand to my team, I will ultimately have to make an application for Contempt of Court for the way they are behaving. 

Learning this gave me the peace of mind and the reassurance I need at this moment.

I used to think it was bewildering to see Russell-Group-educated trans activists students behave this way and this way and this way and get away with it, but now I realise that this sort of contempt for decency, and potentially the law, is enabled by the very top because they too behave this way. The purpose of my case is to ensure that justice prevails and they don't get away with it.

That being said, on some positive news fresh from this morning, sustainable development researcher Maya Forstater has won her appeal against the Employment Tribunal decision that upheld her dismissal from the Center for Global Development. She was dismissed for her belief that biological sex is real, immutable and that it has material ramifications for everyone. Maya went on to be a co-founder of the feminist organisation Sex Matters. This is a landmark judgement that has established that "gender critical beliefs" (believing that sex is real and that gender is the social construction of sexist stereotypes) are protected under the Equality Act 2010. You can read the full judgement here. And watch Maya's statement below:

Well done, Maya for her immense courage and fortitude throughout this process. Her victory today will have a profound effect on the direction of travel of discussions regarding sex-based rights and "gender identity" theories worldwide. Congratulations also to all her lawyers, including some who are also my lawyers, for their expertise and focus on this matter. I will keep you updated as matters progress regarding my case against the University of Bristol. 

Best, 

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well. 

I am writing to let you know some general developments when it comes to how women who defend our legal sex-based rights are treated in UK universities. I also wanted to inform you of some developments regarding my case. 

As some of you might have notice, it appears like there has been a noticeable shift in the public consciousness regarding how much power and influence lobby groups (such as Stonewall) that advocate for "gender identity" policies as if it were the law should hold in society, including within academic settings. This week, Dr Michael Biggs, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford published a detailed analysis of the potentially unlawful challenges that lie when academic institutions outsource their critical thinking skills to lobby groups with a vested interest in undermining sex-based rights, which mainly harms female students and staff members within universities. Professor Biggs also wrote a formal letter to the Oxford University Vice Chancellor about this matter, stating: 

"I call on the University to withdraw from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme and Workplace Equality Index. The University should not submit to an unelected organization which campaigns for a particular political agenda, which provides misleading information of the law, and which has a disturbing history of bullying individual women."

Unsurprisingly, the University of Bristol are a fee-paying member of Stonewall's Champions scheme. While I have not called on them to withdraw from Stonewall's schemes, I have pleaded with them to offer the public full transparency regarding their association with such a disreputable organisation. Here is the link to my Freedom of Information request to the University of Bristol. Please follow up their updates so we may all get the clarity needed at this moment in time.

Today, The Times Scotland features a story about the former Rector at the University of Edinburgh (another Stonewall champion), Ann Henderson, regarding the climate of fear and intimidation she sustained within her academic institution, by trans activist students, merely for supporting democratic debate about established law. She received little support from her senior colleagues. You can read her personal account of everything that transpired on the Woman's Place UK website.

Ann's ordeal began in October 2018 (mine in January 2018), and it is still truly shocking and heartbreaking to see the abuse women have been forced to endure within academic institutions complacent with bullying and harassment perpetrated by trans activists students. Last week, journalist Julie Bindel recalled the unacceptable intimidation she faced from student trans activists, while trying to do her job and cover a feminist event in Bristol. Many of the people in that footage are students at the University of Bristol.

As a matter of fact, the two individuals in the middle of the stairs in this footage (who later on had to be forcibly removed by the Police) were involved in the targeting against me. This individual in particular is the Cambridge and London School of Economics educated bully who got a pat in the back by the University of Bristol for this person's targeting against me. You can witness this individual's behaviour in full on this BBC documentary (33:40) and the broader climate in which trans activists students operate within the University of Bristol on this Mumsnet thread. 

Although there remains much to be done when it comes to upholding women's rights to free speech and academic freedom within UK Universities, there are some tentative signs that things are changing. Last week, a PhD candidate at Brunel University London felt compelled to publicly brag about wanting to mass murder women who dare to defend their sex-based rights as they are already enshrined in UK law. This disturbing intent echoes the Montreal Massacre of December 6th, 1989 (about 30 years ago) and as such, merits a strong response from University authorities. Thankfully, after a highly inappropriate initial response, Brunel University issued a statement condemning the abuse and threats leveled against women by their trans activists students, and announcing actions regarding the matter. 

While these developments are significant, things don't appear particularly hopeful in my case because, true to form, the University of Bristol is cantankerously refusing to accept that they are in live litigation and that the rule of law does indeed apply to them as well. At the moment, they are in breach of a court order that required them to submit important information to my legal team by 4pm today. I have submitted the relevant information they need from me, both at the beginning of these proceedings and before the deadline of our court order (yesterday), in part because I wanted to encourage them to stop being difficult and get on with it. 

I am unhappy that, to this day, far from being sensible, the University of Bristol continues to play games by delaying the process as much as possible, with the full knowledge that I am an international student and the only weapon they can use against me is delaying tactics and playing with time. I refuse to publicly dwell on the impact that an abusive institution has had on me as an human being or as a student, but I would just like to say that I find this matter taxing and difficult. 

I forgot to mention this in my last update, but I am deeply grateful to my legal team (now made up of three brilliant lawyers) for their expertise, dedication and kindness on a matter that I find so challenging. As always, I would like to say thank you to all of you for your support and solidarity. Please share this crowdfunding effort far and wide, but even if you can't donate, all the thoughtful messages you send mean so much to me and I am filled with gratitude to know that I am not alone. 

Best,

Raquel

Dear everyone, 

Hope you are well. 

The trial window for my legal case against the University of Bristol will begin on 31 January 2022 and end on 15 April 2022. Here is an update on what transpired over our Case Management Conference last Thursday 15th. Coordinating details of the timetable took significant time so there will be a separate costs management hearing soon. 

As I wrote previously, a judge had stated they wanted my case to be heard in 2021. However, a different judge assigned to our CMC last Thursday decided that given the uncertainly of our current times, the sensible way forward is to schedule the trial for my case early next year, as opposed to insisting on having it in 2021 and risk any unexpected delays or events, which would force my case to be put at the bottom of the pile of pending legal cases a further 6 or 9 months after our originally agreed dates. Although I was initially disappointed, after some thought, I am grateful to the judge for having the foresight to be cautious on this point.

In the spirit of transparency and since this case is being funded by the public, I want you all to be informed of the developments of last week. Here are the main points decided on the Case Management Conference:

• There will be a separate costs management hearing, listed by the court,  on the first date available, 21 days after 15 April 2021.
• Having previously suggested they might need to have 5 witnesses, the University now says they will have 9 witnesses testifying against me, although they claim they don't know yet how substantial any of them would be. In contrast, I will only be relying on another person so our side has 2 witnesses. I'd like to point out that the more people they suggests as witnesses, the longer the trial itself would take and therefore the trickier it is to get everyone together for Court so this increase is interesting.
• The judge decided that the trial will have a time estimate of 6 days with 1 additional day for preparation by the Judge and their reading.
• The University has previously stated they wanted to rely on some articles of the European Convention of Human Rights in order to prevent us from accessing full disclosure of the documents relevant to my case. This would have been potentially detrimental to my case, so I was relieved that the judge ordered the University to make full disclosure of all documents.
• Additionally, we can apply for specific inspection of any document.
• The Circuit Judge will sit with a lay assessor and the assessor will be qualified to sit on sex discrimination claims. I have two claims relating to treatment I received on the basis of my sex.
• Litigation requires that the exchange of documents and agreement on experts commences fairly soon. Keep in mind that bullying and harassment against me started (and never stopped after that) in January 2018 and I filed my student complaint on 1 February 2018. However, in correspondence before last Thursday, the University argued that the case had to, essentially, be postponed over all summer months because according to their lawyers, the people who already work on year-round contracts involved in my claim were allegedly bound to the academic calendar and would be inaccessible and unable to collaborate over the summer period. I find it incomprehensible how instead of making their case swiftly and decisively, their only tactic appears to be to run from the case. In any case, this very bold move was clearly nonsense but I am very glad they presented this argument because it allowed the opportunity to hear the Judge tell the University of Bristol that they need to get on with it. It is important to note that almost all the people in decision-making positions regarding my case are either senior management or work in the Secretary's Office (the University's legal department). None of them disappear from the face of the Earth over the summer. 

There are two things I want to mention that were particularly upsetting to me. The first one is that our CMC was procedural (a hearing to agree on what days parties have to exchange certain documents, serve expert reports, etc). The timetable presented by the University to my lawyers, prior to last Thursday, would have pushed the dates of my trial way farther into 2022 than the timetable we presented to them. They wanted the trial window of a trial to only commence after March 2022, when they know full well, that as things stand today my British Residence Permit expires in April 2022. That is, the University of Bristol which to this day has a duty of care to me, wants me to pack my bags, be at the final stages of a legal case and maybe finish a PhD all at the same time. Additionally, they wanted to ensure that I would not be present in the UK so that I could attend my own trial and have my day in court. The fact that they would treat any student this way, but particularly an international student given the added vulnerabilities we face being isolated from our homes, is beyond my comprehension. It is hard for me to put into words how repulsive I find the actions of the lowlife people involved in my case (including the bullies). Just when I thought they could not sink any lower, they find a new compartment. 

Speaking of which, as I have mentioned before, the University's defense so far has been "nothing happened, but whatever happened its Raquel's fault." Interestingly, now they are also claiming that they are the true victims here. From their point of view, this legal case is the tragic tale of the billion-pound UK academic institution that got ruthlessly ensnared by the immigrant student who used her feminist wiles to cloud their thinking. Although I am adding some gallows humour to the situation, this truly is their defense. 

They claim that I, or as the University has referred to me in their legal documents, "Rachel Sanchez" from "Panama" has bamboozled them by asking them to uphold their own institutional policies and to protect UK law. They also used the CMC as an opportunity to refer to me and/or my campaigning as "feral". As all DR people (particularly the men) can attest, no Dominican woman has ever been called "feral", so I want to apologise to my people for letting the side down.

I invite you all to please witness my savage ways in the video of my Oral Evidence at the Women and Equality Select Committee yesterday. I spoke about the importance of protecting women's sex-based rights as they are already enshrined in UK law and single-sex spaces, in order to uphold women's right to privacy, safety and dignity: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bc9e8fcd-fa51-4c2c-9666-72d545bed3a8

Alongside this, I ask you to please watch the footage of the behaviour displayed by Bristol Uni trans activist students, that I reported throughout, on this BBC documentary and on this Mumsnet thread. You will observe multiple students being forcibly removed from a number of feminist events they were threatening, either by the Police or campus security. When you watch them, please keep in mind that this is the behaviour that the University of Bristol will spend 7 days defending in court. 

Best, 

Raquel

Ps. In the whole saga between me and the University of Bristol, this is one of the saddest messages I have received. No student ever dreams of feeling this was about their alma mater. If I had told the woman I was when I got accepted into the University of Bristol how they would be treating me down the line, I would straight-up not believe it. What I am feeling right now is oceans away from the excitement, the hopefulness and just the sheer elation I felt when I first stepped into Bristol. This current situation is the result of spineless leadership whose endless dithering prioritizes profits and bullies over the well-being of some, non-elite educated students and the rule of law. 

Dear everyone,

Hope you are well and staying safe during these intense times.

First: Last week, one of my lawyers moved to a new law firm; from Slater and Gordon to Doyle Clayton. CrowdJustice requires that you set up a new page to list the new law firm and close the previous page in order to redirect the funding to the correct place. I have now closed my original page.

Second: The legal case against the University of Bristol is moving forward. Our Case Management Conference is scheduled for 15 April 2021. This is a procedural hearing to decide the trial dates, specify disclosure and confirm the witnesses who will testify for each party. The University says they will have 5 witnesses testifying against me, while I will have 1 other person to stand with me defending my case. The University says they anticipate the trial will take 7 days, while we argue it might take 5 days. A CMC is where these matters are determined. The court has stated they want my case to be decided this year of 2021.

Thirdly: I want to explain to you why I made the decision to remain at the Crowdjustice platform after their mistreatment of Allison Bailey. As a campaigner and as a feminist, Allison Bailey is a woman that I deeply respect and admire. I have wanted to leave Crowdjustice ever since the moment they made the decision to mistreat her by, unceremoniously and without warning, erasing her words and experiences from the platform.

I had heard about the possibility of creating an alternative platform for all the feminists who have been targeted by institutions as a result of our defense of existing sex-based rights, and if that came about, I've been hoping to join that. However, that has not materialized yet, probably because it would be massively time consuming, and all of us have jobs and/or family care responsibilities that we must prioritize, aside from our legal cases. Allison obviously found a third way, which was to raise funds on her own website. I've thought about this a lot and I wish that I could do the same thing but I can't, because of my context as an immigrant.

We don't have a culture of crowdfunding legal efforts in the Dominican Republic. Aside from that, the amount of money I am asking from the public is exorbitant to any reasonable Dominican person, and I am already so worried about how that might be perceived. What I get from Crowdjustice is that they provide an independent platform, devoted exclusively to help fund legal cases, where the money goes directly from donor to law firm. And that dynamic is clear to all external people. I would obviously never do anything with the money other than pay my excellent team of lawyers but I am conscious of how the optics of me raising obscene amounts of money on my own website might look from the perspective of people who are not familiar with these dynamics.

Crowdjustice has been nothing but helpful and encouraging to me personally, but I truly hate that staying on this platform makes me complicit in the way they treated Allison, which I think was unacceptable. The first person I informed of the position I found myself in was Allison herself. She was, characteristically, very kind and understanding. I hope you all can be equally understanding of this decison. I have also emailed Crowdjustice's CEO Julia Salasky to inform her of my thoughts on this matter.

As always, thank you all very much for your interest in my case and our collective fight for academic freedom. By far, the average donation to this legal challenge has been £10-£25, so I am delighted that this is truly a grassroots effort. Every single pound is helpful and even if you can't donate, your messages of support and solidarity are just as valuable and appreciated. THANK YOU!

I will inform you of new developments after our April 15th Case Management Conference.

Best,

Raquel