Anti-DEI views: not protected as ‘political belief’ in Canada
George Waggott
George Waggott Law, Toronto, Ontario
At what point does an employer have a right to require employees to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives? In supporting diverse views, will there be instances where an employer can decide that a person’s lack of support for DEI is enough to refuse to hire them? A recent Canadian human rights decision explores this question, which involves the anti-DEI views of an applicant seeking to become a university professor.
In Gordon v Simon Fraser University, 2026 BCHRT 101, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a discrimination complaint filed by Joshua Gordon, a self-described ‘classical liberal’ political science teacher who was denied a tenure track position because of his views. The Tribunal’s ruling was based on the finding that Gordon’s ideological views, even though deeply-held and sincere, did not amount to a form of ‘political belief’ which is protected by human rights laws.
The case arose when Gordon, who had taught limited courses from 2014 to 2021, applied for an assistant professor position. He believed he was a strong candidate, pointing to the positive performance evaluations he had consistently received. In deciding not to proceed with his candidacy, Simon Fraser University decided to prefer other candidates who were more supportive of DEI expectations and programmes.
In his human rights complaint, Gordon said that the employer focused on certain public statements he had made on political and social issues. This included published statements which expressed conservative views, such as requests to: ‘Relent on the strident moralizing and language policing. Stop trying to win arguments by calling people bad names.’ There was also evidence that Gordon challenged others within the university to identify actual incidents of alleged racism.
The university’s position was that, in light of heightened activism for racial justice, the job posting which Gordon applied for properly included a review of the whether or not applicants were committed to DEI. This was described in the Tribunal decision as being able to ‘demonstrate an appreciation for and an ability to centre diverse perspective and what that entails’.
In defending its decision not to hire Gordon, the university said that it followed a transparent and fair process, which included using a search committee which included faculty and students. Furthermore, after considering 45 applications, Gordon was one of three candidates who was shortlisted and interviewed.
The university did not deny that Gordon’s views on DEI initiatives were a factor in the decision not to hire him. The evidence in the case seemed clear: the faculty at the university opposed Gordon because he did not meet the position’s qualification regarding a commitment to DEI. The important point to note in this regard is that it was clear that Gordon was supportive of some elements of DEI programmes, and the focus of the employment decision appeared to be on whether he was sufficiently committed or aligned to others regarding DEI.
The Tribunal’s decision to dismiss Gordon’s human rights application was based on a close review of the protections regarding political belief under Canadian law. In this area, the protection for a ‘political belief’ requires an individual to prove that the relevant beliefs are: (1) genuinely held; (2) broader than a person’s own interests; and (3) reasonably cogent and cohesive. The decision turned on the third element of this test, which is focused on whether or not the beliefs are reasonably clear, logical, consistent and integrated.
Gordon’s case was dismissed because his views did not involve beliefs about the form and functions of government, and a person’s participation in partisan politics. In other words, he was not denied the position because of his involvement in elected politics or being a member of a political party.
An interesting issue in the decision is that Gordon’s position was essentially that he was punished for beliefs which he did not have. In particular, he claimed that he had been subjected to differential and discriminatory treatment because his support for DEI was qualified. His specific claim was that he was not hired as a result of refusing to be committed to what he called ‘activist EDI [DEI]’.
The Tribunal carefully reviewed Gordon’s beliefs and arguments, and found them to be insufficient to be protected by the ‘political belief’ protections under human rights law. This determination was based on finding that Gordon’s views, though ‘political’ in the everyday sense of the word, were not connected to government action or a mode of social cooperation through governance. Instead, the Tribunal found that the university properly had the right to decide not to hire a person whose worldview and opinions on university business were opposed to the employer.
This decision resulted in what may appear to be a surprising outcome – a university politics teacher who had different ‘politics’ from many in the same faculty was denied a position in part because of these views. The fact that Gordon was not as committed to DEI as others was not a protected ground under Canadian human rights laws.
This ruling provides some comfort to employers whose job postings or employment programmes include a requirement to be supportive of DEI initiatives. Not every ‘political’ view needs to be accommodated or accepted, and there is scope to decide not to hire those whose views conflict with the objectives of the employer. This dynamic creates a fascinating paradox for employers: in the interests of trying to be welcoming of more diverse communities, there may be some support for mandatory requirements about a uniform views on the importance of DEI and related initiatives.