B.C. human rights tribunal rules conservatism not a real political view

border_humper

border_humper

Staff Member
Moderator
Chief Disinfo Officer

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.
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.”

It was in this context that SFU began searching for a new tenure-track assistant professor. According to Gordon’s evidence, his faculty dean, Jane Pulkingham, told him that she was contemplating racial preferences for the job. She ultimately decided against, opting for a DEI-focused posting instead. Applicants had to demonstrate “a commitment to values of equity, diversity, and inclusion,” an ability to “centre diverse perspectives,” and leadership in the public policy areas of “equity, diversity, and inclusion and issues of Indigenous rights and title.” DEI was to make up 10 per cent of a candidate’s score.

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.
Click to expand...
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.”

Though this is a common collection of beliefs found on the right, Cousineau appeared to feign ignorance.

“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.”
Click to expand...
You various ‘ideas’ aren’t cogent enough to be protected as a political belief.
 
Upvote 6
Any ideology that purports to be able to explain every social phenomenon via its delusional "theories" is necessarily going to be more "cohesive" than a collection of observations that accurately describe reality, but that doesn't mean that the latter isn't still vastly preferable to the former. The foundational beliefs of Islam are extremely cohesive, for example, but that doesn't mean its worldview is even remotely valid.

Unfortunately, the semi-educated people who rule over our declining civilization have decreed that the mark of a genuine intellectual is his commitment to a Grand Unified Theory of human society -- a left-wing one, of course -- and that any critiques of this Theory, however accurate they may be, amount to pointless sniping from the sidelines
 
All humans rights are just restrictions of our natural rights. If you have a right to do something then you don't need a government to ensure your right, you simply can do it. When the government uses force to stop you from doing something, they are restricting your rights not giving you rights.

If I can't withhold selling a cake that I own and I made to a gay person on account of him being gay then my rights have been restricted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top