UBC ‘political activity’ lawsuit is an exercise in power politics and ideology

The political left, according to the political right, are often derided as “snowflakes” who react either with violence or tantrums when confronted with dissenting — for example, “common sense” conservative — viewpoints. 

This popular image is often wielded by right-wingers to discredit their opposites as incapable of serious, honest, or open dialogue and as being incompatible with the free exchange of ideas. 

Surely, then, that should mean that the right wing are the champions of freedom of expression and the diversity of opinions, right?

Four University of British Columbia (UBC) professors and one graduate student are taking their school to court over what they claim is a violation of the provincial University Act, according to reporting from The Canadian Press. 

As reported by UBC’s student newspaper The Ubyssey, they claim the school has breached Section 66 of the act, which states that a university must “be non-sectarian and non-political in principle.” 

The petition was filed to the Supreme Court of B.C. on April 8 and highlights three particular grievances: UBC conducting official Indigenous land acknowledgments; equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) hiring requirements; and academic units’ statements regarding Israel and Palestine. 

The group claims these are all considered “political activity” from university administration, which not only breaches the University Act, but allegedly constitutes as a form of compelled speech wherein students and faculty “risk losing opportunities” if they do not toe the line. 

The five petitioners are backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation and lawyer Josh Dehaas, who equated UBC’s EDI principles to “Cold War-era anti-communist loyalty pledges,” The Canadian Press reported. 

It should be obvious how deeply hypocritical and insincere this lawsuit is. To depoliticize UBC is in itself a political activity — one that affirms the status quo is inherently just and in no need of scrutiny or changes. 

The petitioners are neither apolitical nor neutral parties, they have a specific, ideological agenda that they are pursuing through legal means. Notice their exact grievances — acknowledgements that B.C. is unceded Indigenous territory, which is an indisputable fact, and EDI principles, which recognize that certain groups of people have been underrepresented in society. And, as their lawyer was quoted in The Canadian Press, condemnations of Israel’s actions against Palestine. 

As noted by The Ubyssey, the university’s condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was absent from the petition. 

All of these are issues that the right wing have a particular grudge against because they challenge the existing order. More specifically, they challenge the colonialist and discriminatory power imbalances that oppress people all over the world, but are also present in the settler-colonial country that is Canada. 

These five claimants are driven by a motive — shutting down a specific form of speech they do not agree with. Using legal instruments, they intend on creating a chilling effect that would make institutions reluctant to speak against injustices for fear of costly reprisal. 

They are not interested in political neutrality. They want their preferred biases to be re-affirmed, entrenched, and go unchallenged. 

Politics is about power — all sides and all ideologies jockey for it. Those who claim they are not are either lying or have no sense of how politics works. Or, a third option, the ideology they subscribe to is so entrenched and normalized that they cannot recognize it as an ideology. 

No matter what it is, what can be said for certain is that there is a power play going on. It is one that insists all is right in the world and that naysayers are wrong and dangerous for suggesting otherwise and for speaking out against material conditions.