A hilariously scathing thread on That Report:

I’ll just quote the rest.

1. The paper is, presentationally, very poor with numerous typographical errors and infelicities of expression. May we kindly suggest that next time you proof read your paper prior to submission. Our readers are not there to provide copy editing services.

2. The paper has a tendency to assert rather than argue the case, indeed so much so that the paper veers towards unsubstantiated monologue. There are several places where instead of using authoritative sources on the law – or indeed even academic concepts – your paper relies on dictionary definitions. See particularly the definition of gender critical. Quite frankly, there is no excuse in academic work to rely on a dictionary definition when there is both case law (please see the EAT in Forstater V CGD) or a reasonably extensive body of academic literature. We are happy to provide a reading list of appropriate sources to help improve your thinking on this matter. See also your footnote 29 where you assert – without further discussion – that gender critical beliefs contain the same logic errors as those espoused by members of the BNP – namely trading in negative and highly prejudicial stereotypes of an entire category of individuals. Had you argued rather than merely asserted your case here, you might have seen the irony in your footnote.

More concerning however is the fact that you state that your paper provides a balanced analysis of the situation viz-a-viz balancing academic freedom, freedom to protest and harassment in universities viz trans inclusivity. The problem the reviewers had is that your description of the law contains far too many factual errors for the paper to be treated seriously. Please see the very illuminating analysis of @akuareindorf (whose work I believe you may be familiar with) and @AudreySuffolk. Both these analyses show that your understanding of the Equality Act 2010 is highly problematic – in fact we suggest your demonstrated understanding would not even merit a bare pass at UG level. There are three more issues though that lead to the decision to reject.

One would assume in any attempt to publish an authoritative analysis of the balancing that Universities must do in this area would require at a minimum a detailed consideration of s26(4) Equality Act 2010. Yet this is wholly absent.

Your inclusion of the concept of ‘contagion’ and ‘contamination’ goes beyond legal analysis and veers into the realm of rhetoric.

Your chosen examples seem to work against you. We believe that at @Uni_of_Essex there were indeed campaigns of the type you describe that resulted in unlawful actions. #ReindorfReport

Thus, the substandard presentation, combined with lack of authoritative sources and lack of informed discussion of key legal framework means that this report is simply not up to the requisite academic standards for peer review. That said, it is a great exemplar paper that can be used for teaching purposes. It provides students with a great example of what not to do.

Wallop!