Political Correctness Is Illegal

Main Mall Greenway - UBC

 

Political Correctness Is Illegal, Say These Professors Suing Their University

A group of academics at the University of British Columbia say the school’s D.E.I. (diversity-equity-inclusion) policies and practices, which include land acknowledgments, violate a law that requires universities to be “nonpolitical.”  

Article by Pranav Baskar Feb. 19, 2026 New York Times

Job candidates required to describe how they would advance “decolonization.”  A video that suggests starting meetings by identifying oneself as a “settler” on unceded native lands.  A political scientist who says he was instructed to teach game theory “from an Indigenous perspective.”

Each, a practice at the University of British Columbia, is now evidence in a lawsuit brought against the school by a group of professors who claim such social-justice efforts violate a provincial law requiring universities to stay out of politics.

The suit, filed last spring and currently under review by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has set off a major legal and cultural battle at one of Canada’s top universities, in which each side accuses the other of trying to push an activist political agenda in the name of free speech.  The suit raises important questions about when public speech in a democratic society is political.

The professors who petitioned the court say the university’s measures promote a campus culture that punishes contrarian ideas and pressures academics to endorse progressive political positions with which they may disagree.  They seek to ban the university from a broad range of actions that include requiring job applicants to commit to diversity principles; and the making of so-called land acknowledgments, ceremonial statements which often precede public events and that note Canada is the ancestral land of Indigenous people.

The professors’ case hinges on a decades-old provincial law, called the University Act, which mandates that universities be “non-sectarian and nonpolitical in principle.”  But the law does little to clarify the bigger question before the court: What counts as political?

“In recent years, university administrators have given in to the calls to take political positions,” said Josh Dehaas, a lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a libertarian organization, who is representing the professors suing the university.  “In this particular era, the pressure they have given into is often progressive causes.”  Before 2020, he added, an accomplished academic did not need “to commit to D.E.I. principles to become a professor at U.B.C.”

In a brief submitted to the court, the university argued the professors have not shown proof of harm to their careers or liberties, and denied that either land acknowledgments or D.E.I. policies constitute “political activity” under the law.

Land acknowledgments, the university says, reflect a “legal fact” rather than a political belief — the property occupied by the university was never ceded via treaty by the original Indigenous occupants.   Furthermore, it says, no one on campus is mandated to make such pronouncements.

The university also says written statements by job applicants about their commitments to D.E.I. are not used as “screening tools.”  However, it adds, those statements can be used to disqualify a candidate who fails to uphold its principles.

The four professors bringing the suit have years of teaching experience at the university and include instructors of philosophy, political science and English. In hundreds of pages of affidavit material, the group portrays a university climate in which speaking out against left-wing positions risks professional consequences.

“When people in charge of the hiring, firing, and promotions are taking any side, that infringes on academic freedom,” said Mr. Dehaas, their lawyer.  “The pressures are so strong that they become de facto mandatory.”

The university has long been at the forefront of the movement to support the inherent rights of Canada’s Indigenous people.  The Vancouver campus is home to the Xwi7xwa Library for Indigenous studies, which according to the school’s website is “located on the traditional, ancestral, unceded territory of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ speaking xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people.”

Of the university’s 72,692 students across two campuses in Vancouver and Okanagan, 2,500 identify as Indigenous, according to the academy’s latest enrollment report.  And the leaders of another local tribe, the Sylix nation, condemned the lawsuit as regressive and insulting.

Andrew Irvine, a philosophy professor at the university’s Okanagan campus, who is among those suing the school, has in his public writings about academic freedom taken positions that critics say trivializes the history of Indigenous people and racism.

In response to such criticism Professor Irvine wrote in a National Post article that the response from Indigenous groups mischaracterized his position.  He said the professors take no view on land acknowledgments other than that they are political in nature, and that “our case in no way attempts to override or diminish Indigenous rights.”  The campus is divided — unsurprisingly, the professors who brought the suit might say — along political lines.

 

Viewpoint: United Nations-aligned laws create two-tiered society

'The public must understand the principle that legal capacity creates its own unending demand'

Feb. 11, 2026

Powell River-Sunshine Coast MLA Randene Neill, who is also BC’s minister of water, land and resource stewardship, made no additional explanations or assuaged public anxiety with her answers to Powell River Westview Ratepayers Association on Feb 6.

Neill was invited to respond to written pre-submitted questions about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. BC premier David Eby has said the government will be amending DRIPA before the summer break of 2026 to scale back the power courts have in shaping reconciliation efforts. Recent court decisions have created confusion about what the act means in practice. Eby said his government is also planning to appeal the court decision to defend private property rights, but no documents have been filed.

However, Eby does not admit his legislation created all the legal problems. He won’t admit DRIPA is not fixable, and that the legislation cannot pretend to be one thing (social reconciliation -peace -certainty -trust) while being another —a big highway to unending demands. The NDP is the only government in the world that has made such enabling legislation at the behest of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Meanwhile, BC Conservatives want to repeal DRIPA, claiming the government has continued to cause uncertainty by signing land-use agreements with First Nations without widespread public input, consultation and social approval. The NDP claims settlement deals are the business of government to government, and that the public is only peripherally relevant to the process.

DRIPA is dividing British Columbians, say BC Conservatives, and people are being left to wonder whether land access, development rights and long-standing property law can change overnight, without significant public debate.

Eby says Indigenous claims to land title predates the DRIPA legislation and First Nations title was not invented by DRIPA. He said it is grounded in Canada's constitution and repealing DRIPA would remove the road map they have with First Nations for how to resolve matters outside of court. It would bring more conflicts in the court and slow projects down. Repealing DRIPA would return us to a darker, conflict-oriented time and set us back a generation in our relationship with First Nations, Eby said.

However, in my view, under the guise of “reconciliation,” the province is being reshaped—not by democratic consensus, but by ideology embedded into law.

For example, the Cowichan Ruling of 2025 was a decision legitimizing aboriginal title over private property homeowners in Richmond, based on questionable hearsay evidence from 150 years ago. This ruling, influenced by NDP provincial government “practice directives” prioritizing Indigenous reconciliation claims, discards the established rule of law and creates unequal treatment based on race. It is certain that every legal loophole and advantage will be always exploited to the sole advantage of the claimants.

Residents of Okanagan Falls, a community that is 97 per cent non-Indigenous, were blindsided to learn their efforts to incorporate and become a city have now subjected them to DRIPA. The neighbouring Osoyoos First Nation has claimed it wants Okanagan Falls’ name, and potentially street names, changed to their preference. They also want crown land removed from proposed city boundaries.

The public must understand the principle that legal capacity creates its own unending demand. United Nations-aligned laws create a two-tiered society, where a privileged group’s legal authority takes precedence over the interests of the majority. That’s not reconciliation—it is one-way capitulation, including implied social guilt.

At the ratepayers meeting, Neill said she would vote for amendment and not the repeal of DRIPA. The Conservatives alternative is to completely repeal and replace with more traditional negotiation processes.