The academic world at the University of British Columbia is currently embroiled in a significant controversy. Practices like requiring job applicants to explain their commitment to ‘decolonization,’ a video suggesting attendees introduce themselves as ‘settlers’ on unceded Indigenous lands, and a political scientist reportedly being told to teach game theory from an ‘Indigenous perspective’ are at the heart of a new lawsuit. A group of professors has brought this action against the university, contending that such social justice efforts directly violate a provincial law mandating universities to remain ‘nonpolitical.’
This legal battle, initiated last spring and now before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has escalated into a major cultural and legal confrontation at one of Canada’s premier universities. Both parties accuse the other of promoting an activist political agenda while simultaneously championing free speech. The case highlights a growing trend where opposition to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, similar to debates seen in the United States, has spread to Canada. More than just another ‘culture war’ skirmish, the lawsuit raises fundamental questions about the nature of political expression within a democratic society and its educational institutions.
The plaintiff professors argue that the university’s measures foster a campus environment where unconventional ideas are penalized, and academics feel pressured to adopt progressive political viewpoints they may not personally endorse. They aim to secure a ban on various university activities, including mandatory commitments to diversity principles for job candidates and the ceremonial practice of ‘land acknowledgments’ – statements often preceding public events that recognize Canada as ancestral Indigenous territory.
The core of the professors’ legal challenge is a decades-old provincial statute, the University Act, which dictates that universities must operate ‘nonsectarian and nonpolitical in principle.’ However, the law provides little clarity on the overarching question confronting the court: what precisely constitutes ‘political’ in this context? Josh Dehaas, a lawyer from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a libertarian advocacy group, commented, ‘In recent years, university administrators have given in to the calls to take political positions. In this particular era, the pressure they have given into is often progressive causes.’ He emphasized that, prior to 2020, achieving academic success at UBC did not require adherence to DEI principles. The four professors involved in the lawsuit have chosen not to speak publicly as the case proceeds.
In its submitted brief, the university contends that the professors have not provided sufficient evidence of harm to their careers or liberties. It explicitly denies that either land acknowledgments or DEI policies qualify as ‘political activity’ under the law. The university asserts that land acknowledgments are a recognition of ‘legal fact’—that the land was never ceded by treaty from its original Indigenous inhabitants—rather than a political belief. Furthermore, it states that participation in such pronouncements is not mandatory for anyone on campus.
The First Nations Longhouse on the UBC campus, a building designed to echo a traditional Musqueam shed-style longhouse, stands as a symbol of Indigenous presence and serves as a ‘home away from home’ for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students.
The university also clarified that written statements from job applicants regarding their DEI commitments are not employed as ‘screening tools.’ Nevertheless, it acknowledged that such statements could lead to disqualification if a candidate fails to uphold the institution’s core principles. The University of British Columbia and its legal counsel declined additional comment, referring The Times to their official court response.
Several advocacy groups, including the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), have either filed or intend to file opinions with the court. They argue that the lawsuit overlooks historical realities and is essentially an effort to undermine diversity initiatives. Vibert Jack, the BCCLA’s litigation director, stated, ‘It’s a perversion of free expression to say by limiting expression, you’re expanding it.’
The professors bringing the suit are experienced educators in fields such as philosophy, political science, and English. Through extensive affidavit materials reviewed, they depict a university environment where challenging left-leaning perspectives can lead to professional repercussions. Mr. Dehaas, their lawyer, highlighted, ‘When people in charge of the hiring, firing, and promotions are taking any side, that infringes on academic freedom. The pressures are so strong that they become de facto mandatory.’
The Museum of Anthropology at UBC, a significant cultural and educational institution, remains open to the public, offering research and teaching related to global cultures, particularly those of the First Peoples of British Columbia.
The university has a long history of championing the inherent rights of Canada’s Indigenous peoples. Its Vancouver campus, as noted on its website, is situated on the ‘traditional, ancestral, unceded territory of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ speaking xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people.’ Current enrollment reports indicate that 2,500 of UBC’s 72,692 students across its two campuses identify as Indigenous. Leaders of the local Sylix nation have vociferously criticized the lawsuit as both regressive and disrespectful. Chief Clarence Louie asserted in an open letter, ‘The recognition of unceded Sylix Okanagan land is not a political maneuver; it is an acknowledgment of historical truths and legal realities. Attempts to silence these acknowledgments are attempts to erase Sylix Okanagan presence and rights.’
Posters displayed in the windows of the Indian residential school history and dialogue center serve as a poignant reminder of past injustices and ongoing reconciliation efforts.
Andrew Irvine, a philosophy professor at UBC’s Okanagan campus and one of the plaintiffs, has publicly expressed views on academic freedom that critics contend minimize the historical experiences of Indigenous communities and the reality of racism. Responding to this criticism in a National Post article, Professor Irvine argued that Indigenous groups had mischaracterized his position. He reiterated that the professors’ stance on land acknowledgments is solely about their political classification, and that ‘our case in no way attempts to override or diminish Indigenous rights.’
An entrance sign clearly marks The University of British Columbia, a sprawling campus now at the center of this contentious legal debate.
Unsurprisingly, the campus appears to be deeply divided along ideological lines—a point the plaintiff professors themselves might emphasize. William Bowman, a computer science professor at the university, characterized the lawsuit as an ‘attempt to limit academic freedom’ rather than expanding it. He believes the court case reflects a ‘minority opinion,’ suggesting that very few on campus truly feel their views are suppressed. ‘If these professors don’t want to do land acknowledgments, they can stop doing land acknowledgments and nobody would care,’ he observed.
However, others concede that the university’s policies can indeed exert a subtle pressure. Joshua Hart, president of UBC’s conservative student union, argued, ‘Staff should not be committed to certain ideas, even if they are generally good things we want to promote.’ He concluded, ‘People will hold ideas we don’t agree with, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately, there is a marketplace of ideas, especially at an academy.’