Another month, another egregious decision by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
By Lisa Bildy, Special to National Post
Published May 16, 2026
Does anyone understand what “classical liberalism” is anymore? The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal certainly doesn’t.
Last 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 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.
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?
National Post
Lisa Bildy is a lawyer and executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. She can be found on X at @LDBildy.
Public outrage is growing, and politicians are being pressured to act. Reining in these star chambers is no longer good enough. Legislatures must abolish them, along with the human rights codes that they enforce. That requires political backbone, so don’t hold your breath. Instead, call, write, or sign a petition like ours at the Free Speech Union to let your political leaders know how many Canadians oppose financial ruin for expressing opinions on issues affecting themselves and their children.
Sign the Petition Here
