Lisa Bildy: Activist tribunal rules classical liberalism is not a political philosophy

Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeNP CommentLisa Bildy: Activist tribunal rules classical liberalism is not a political philosophyEDI has become so pervasive, its political nature can become invisible to those enforcing itLast updated 14 hours ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Simon Fraser University was accused of using discriminatory hiring practices for passing over a professor who rejects equity, diversity and inclusion goals. Photo by Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian PressDoes anyone understand what “classical liberalism” is anymore? The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal certainly doesn’t.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERSEnjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLESEnjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountLast month, it tossed out a complaint filed by a former political science professor against Simon Fraser University (SFU). He argued that he was passed over for a tenure-track position because his classical liberal beliefs did not align with the university’s demand for ideological conformity to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI).His case didn’t even get past the gate-keeping stage. Four years after his complaint was filed, the tribunal ruled, without a hearing, that his beliefs were not grounded in a cohesive and recognized political philosophy and that the complaint had “no reasonable prospect of success.”This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThis is the philosophy that shaped the modern West. But it’s apparently not one that the tribunal, or SFU, recognizes.According to the decision, Joshua Gordon’s early research focused on the sort of class-based concerns for social justice that used to preoccupy the political left: affordable housing for the working poor, the “role of labour unions in building a robust welfare state” and so on.But that’s not what passes for acceptable research in today’s academic environment: “activist EDI” requires the use of critical‑theory frameworks that sort people into identity groups and demand adjusted outcomes based on group hierarchy rather than individual merit or economic class. In a pluralistic society like Canada’s, this sort of thinking is corrosive.In setting out the parties’ positions, tribunal member Devyn Cousineau noted that Gordon “describes himself as a ‘classical liberal,’ who supports ‘mild EDI,’ meaning ‘a liberal commitment to eliminating overt forms of discrimination and systemic barriers.’ ”That was the sole mention of classical liberalism in the entire decision. She could not properly characterize Gordon’s opposition to “activist EDI” as classical liberalism — a coherent political tradition with centuries of scholarship — because she appeared to have no conception of it.Perhaps that’s not surprising. Universities have spent decades marinating students in identity-based theories, and those graduates now populate the institutions that shape public discourse through media, law, education and the public service.Meanwhile, Marxist educator Paulo Freire’s revolutionary praxis — drawn from his book, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” — has seeped into K–12 education, mobilizing students to view and transform society through the lens of oppression. Classical liberalism, which is seen by critical theorists as an “oppressor ideology,” is no longer on the syllabus.Classical liberalism emerged during the Enlightenment as a political philosophy centred on individual rights, freedom of conscience and expression, equality before the law and limits on state power.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Drawing on earlier traditions of rational inquiry and constitutionalism, it dismantled hereditary privilege and group‑based legal hierarchies by insisting that each person possesses inherent dignity and must be treated as a rights‑bearing individual.It is the only political philosophy that treats the right to free speech as inviolable. These principles became foundational to modern western institutions and offered a way to restrain our tribal impulses by grounding political order in universal legal equality rather than in the claims of groups or castes.But group rights are all the rage today, and along with them comes an intolerance for any expression to the contrary. Despite Gordon’s strong teaching evaluations, his “responses with respect to EDI” were deemed insufficient by the activist faculty group — five faculty members who opposed his appointment and held enough votes to sink it.Their concern was that Gordon’s EDI statement indicated that he treated people equally, without regard to race, gender or sexual orientation. That is no longer acceptable. Under activist EDI, one must not treat people equally; one must treat them unequally, according to a shifting hierarchy of “marginalized” identities.This hierarchy is unstable and often incoherent. Gay men who do not identify as “queer,” or non-white individuals who hold conservative or classical liberal views, can find themselves reclassified as “oppressors.” The logic is political, not principled.Critical theory rejects the core assumptions of the classical liberal legal order: equality before the law, individual rights and rationalism. Within this framework, disagreement is treated as harm, and dissenters are viewed not as interlocutors but as obstacles to justice. The result is an ideology that cannot tolerate dissent and that must correct, exclude or sanction those who reject its premises.Gordon described his worldview as prioritizing equality over equity, colour-blindness, individualism over group rights and open inquiry over ideological policing. That political worldview has a name: classical liberalism. But according to Cousineau, it lacks “the necessary cohesion and cogency” to qualify as a protected political belief under Sec. 13 of the B.C. Human Rights Code.Interestingly, she concluded that the activist EDI orthodoxy embraced by the faculty group is not a cohesive political belief, either. When an ideology becomes so pervasive that it is simply “the water everyone swims in,” its political nature can become invisible to those enforcing it. When everything is political, nothing is.I have argued in these pages that human rights tribunals across Canada have outlived their usefulness. This case is yet another example of institutions that no longer defend rights but instead enforce ideological conformity. How many more examples do we need?Lisa Bildy is a lawyer and executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.