Jamie Sarkonak: B.C. human rights tribunal rules conservatism not a real political view
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
While B.C.’s human rights code notionally protects people on the basis of political belief, this didn’t help a Simon Fraser University political science professor who was denied a job over his lack of support for DEI. Indeed, the tribunal decided in April not to give the matter a hearing.
Josh Gordon had taught at the SFU policy school from 2014 to 2021 on various contracts. He applied for a tenure-track position in 2021, but, despite having positive student reviews, a history of teaching in the faculty (contract renewals and pay increases indicated he was performing well) and a point of view that added diversity to the policy school, he was shut down.
The competition for that job was in 2021. All minds were still on the previous summer’s Black Lives Matter pandemic-flouting demonstrations, riots, and, at SFU, a letter to the school complaining about the unquantifiable force of “systemic racism” and white supremacy, and demanding the integration of DEI into the academy.
When faculty members gathered to discuss the letter, Gordon took the side of not giving in. His positions? It shouldn’t be assumed that institutions are systemically racist. People should be treated equally. The student letter was part of an ideological agenda.
Nevertheless, SFU responded to the letter by rhetorically kneeling before the student body and apparently accepting the charge of racism.
Gordon’s views were no secret to the faculty. Throughout his time there, reads the tribunal decision, “He was open about his views that (for example): not all issues need be informed by a gender based analysis; he was skeptical about the effectiveness of decriminalizing and destigmatizing drug use; and he did not accept that all negative phenomena in Indigenous communities were the product of colonialism.”
Gordon applied for the job and highlighted his way of including diverse perspectives in the classroom, and ensuring his students are treated equally. He made the shortlist. From there, nine faculty members voted on a ranked ballot to indicate their top choices. Five colleagues ranked Gordon last, so he was eliminated from the running. Faculty leaders acknowledged that he “clearly has significantly more teaching experience than the other candidates” and taught in-demand courses, but that he wasn’t adequately in support of DEI.
The winning candidate had been teaching for less time — but published more in that small span, which raised her publication rate over time above Gordon’s. She also had “room for improvement in her teaching.”
To win at a future prospective tribunal hearing, Gordon would have had to establish that one of the reasons for not being hired was political belief. SFU would then get the opportunity to defend, in this case, by proving that an embrace of DEI was a necessary requirement for the job. But he didn’t even get that far, because the tribunal said he had no reasonable chance of success. Opposition to DEI, wrote B.C. Human Rights Tribunal adjudicator Devyn Cousineau, wasn’t a political position.
Gordon’s beliefs lacked “both the necessary cohesion and cogency” to warrant protection, as they ranged “from formal vs. substantive equality, systemic discrimination, social privilege, colonialism, ‘identity politics,’ pedagogical approaches, and free expression in an academic context.”
“It is not apparent to me that the various ideas within this worldview, taken separately or together, relate to a core belief about systems of social co-operation through governance, or issues that engage the form or functions of government. For example, it is not apparent to me how Dr. Gordon’s views about systemic racism (or a lack thereof) at SFU relate to politics, laws, or other government action.”
Cousineau, on the other hand, ruled in 2025 that the tribunal should give a full hearing to a woman who claimed she was fired for supporting transgender inclusion in a women’s association — that is, for being an ally. “The case also raises unique issues about how the Tribunal should interpret ‘political belief,’ ” she wrote. Left-leaning positions warrant a full hearing; right-leaning ones don’t.
It’s also noteworthy that Cousineau was one of the tribunal members who ruled that a former B.C. school board councillor must pay $750,000 for openly opposing gender ideology. She’s no stranger to awarding massive damages when ideology goes her way, either: in 2022, she ordered the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society to pay $150,000 for basing a custody decision on alleged stereotypes; in that decision, she decried child protection laws for being too Eurocentric .
Unfortunately for Gordon, his fate was in the hands of someone who had long before taken the other side. And here we see the futility of human rights law: add political protections to your rules, and you can be confident they will be of great use to the left. The right? Not so much.
National Post
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
95 visitors
It's always nice when progressive totalitarians act exactly like the stereotype:
We protect political speech! But only if you agree with the government mandated position!
Discuss it with Brendan Carr ... @!@
that sounds like the new DOJ mission statement ...
Pot meet kettle.