Joshua Gordon was a Canadian professor in Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy between 2014 and 2021. He applied for a tenure-track position in 2021. He was rejected.
Gordon says that a “group of faculty opposed his application because they perceived that his beliefs around certain issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusion [EDI] were disqualifying,” according to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s decision.
The university’s response to Gordon’s discrimination claim is multi-pronged.
The Tribunal explains: “SFU denies discriminating. It argues, first, that Dr. Gordon has not identified any political beliefs that are protected by the Code. Second, it says that Dr. Gordon’s political beliefs – real or perceived – were not a factor in the decision not to hire him for the Position. Third, in the alternative, it says that its expectations around EDI were a bona fide occupational requirement.”
So then, SFU’s initial argument is:
Gordon did not articulate political beliefs protected by law.
Gordon’s political beliefs were not a factor in denying him tenure.
Should those arguments fail, SFU’s position is that Gordon did not possess the proper political beliefs for the job.
In other words, SFU appears to be saying, “We did not discriminate against him on the basis of political belief, but if we did, he didn’t have a legitimate political belief to begin with.”
The Tribunal says that “evidence in this case could support that one reason Dr. Gordon was not hired for the position was because his attitudes towards EDI did not align with those of the faculty group that opposed him,” but dismisses Gordon’s claim because he “has no reasonable prospect of proving that a ‘commitment to activist EDI’ is a political belief within the meaning of s. 13 of the Code.“
The Tribunal writes: “The difficulty in this case is that Dr. Gordon’s proposed ‘political belief’ encompasses a collection of ideas and beliefs across a range of issues ranging from formal vs. substantive equality, systemic discrimination, social privilege, colonialism, ‘identity politics’, pedagogical approaches, and free expression in an academic context. It is, in his description, not a specific belief but an entire worldview. 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 cooperation 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.”
It is pretty apparent to me how Gordon’s views about racism at SFU might relate to politics, laws, or other government action. SFU is a public research university. It receives substantial financial support from the Canadian government. Gordon appears to believe SFU is engaged in illegal discrimination in the interest of rectifying racial injustice. One might argue that the Canadian government should aggressively penalize public universities which engage in discrimination.
Examples of Gordon’s political beliefs, according to the Tribunal, included: “not all issues need be informed by a gender based analysis,” skepticism “about the effectiveness of decriminalizing and destigmatizing drug use” and a disbelief in the idea “that all negative phenomena in Indigenous communities were the product of colonialism.”
Unfortunately for Gordon, he submitted his application for tenure in January 2021, when hysteria about “systemic racism” was at an all-time high. Gordon nevertheless made the shortlist for tenure. Then, a faculty group wrote to the Director Nancy Olewiler to express their “collective concerns about the hiring process,” according to the Tribunal. A member of the search committee allegedly noted that the group’s concern was motivated by “attitudes toward Josh Gordon: whether he is a credible candidate for the short list or whether he is insufficiently sensitive to identity issues to be credible.”
Gordon was eliminated from consideration a short time later, according to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal describes criteria for protection based on political belief. The political belief must be:
“[G]enuinely held,”
“[B]roader than a person’s own personal interests,”
“’[R]easonably cogent and cohesive’ – meaning ‘reasonably clear, logical, consistent, and integrated’: Pozsar v. City of Maple Ridge, 2018 BCHRT 107 at para. 34; Maatz at para. 52. This does not include beliefs grounded in unfounded conspiracy theories: Maatz.”
I suspect the third criterion leaves plenty of room to discriminate against the institutionally disfavored individuals.
Gordon’s case is evidence of leftism run amok in Canada, yes. It is also a playbook for political victory.
Every political coalition is trying to determine the terms of debate.
When a subject remains up for debate, it remains in the political sphere. There exists room for dissent and disagreement. When a subject exits the realm of debate, it becomes fact.
Thus, the ultimate victory for a political group is to move their beliefs out of the realm of debate and into the realm of orthodoxy.
Consider your reaction if a person were to earnestly engage you with the question: “If I drop an apple, will it fall to the ground?”
In our hypothetical, this person believes the answer to that question is “No.”
You might spend a few minutes debating this person. You might drop an object, an apple even, to demonstrate the self-evident nature of your position. The person is unconvinced. He maintains that the answer to his question is “No.”
You would likely tire of debating this person after a short while. You would probably classify this person as a kook. You might begin to question his other beliefs, even if they were seemingly reasonable. You might even tell others that they would be wasting their time by debating this person, and that the most prudent course of action would be to ignore him entirely.
This is why the modern left is so fond of tautologies, I think.
Consider: “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” The subtext is something like, “This is so obvious it’s not worth defining or debating.”
Statements like these are also an easy means of sorting in-group from out-group. If you believe that “transwomen are women” is as true and apparent as “the sky is blue,” why bother talking to someone who insists the sky is pink?
Let’s return to Gordon’s case. The left’s goal is to narrow the definition of “political belief” to exclude those beliefs which challenge their priors. When they succeed in this goal, a person who does not believe in “blank slatism” or “pervasive anti-black discrimination” is not engaging in political conversation. They are engaging in heresy — or “disinformation.”
Stating that you do not believe there is systemic discrimination against non-whites becomes equivalent to stating that you do not believe apples are subject to gravity.
Like what you’re reading? If so, please consider subscribing to State of the Day or sharing this with a friend. You’d be supporting this newsletter and helping keep independent journalism alive.