Four professors at the University of British Columbia, represented by the libertarian Canadian Constitution Foundation, are suing the school. The plaintiffs claim that the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies violate a provincial law requiring universities to to be “nonpolitical.” The case is currently under review by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The professors claim the university is promoting a culture that punishes contrarian ideas and pressures academics to endorse progressive political positions with which they may disagree. Conform or else. Their concerns revolve largely around reconciliation policies.

Some irritants mentioned include new hires being asked how they would advance “decolonization,” suggestions that they start meetings by identifying themselves as “settlers” or by land acknowledgments.

Such items could indeed be annoying. The question about decolonization, for example, is misguided. Colonization did, after all, bring good things as well as bad. Identifying yourself as a settler would be offensive to many who were born and raised in this country, and is divisive to boot.

As for the land acknowledgement, that is just a statement of fact, and a rather important one. The original owners of the land never voluntarily surrendered it, and this is worth keeping in mind. Nonetheless the professors do have a point about reconciliation excess.

If the policies have created a coercive atmosphere, that is indeed a problem. All policies should be subject to constructive criticism, most certainly at a university where questioning received wisdom is encouraged. How else can weaknesses be discovered? How else can the policies be improved? Creating policy is one thing, imposing views is another.

But a law suit? It would seem more constructive to hash the issue out in-house. After all, these plaintiffs are professors, bright, well-spoken individuals who should be able to present their views eloquently and convincingly. As for their claim that contrarian ideas are being punished, one might ask how contrary are the ideas they want to express.

If, for instance, they are the kind of contrarian ideas presented by the recently murdered American conservative provocateur Charlie Kirk, offence should be expected. Kirk was a hero among conservatives (incredibly, he was given a standing ovation in our House of Commons by Conservative MPs) so he serves as a good example. Kirk was infamous for his bigotry, intolerance and stereotyping for his attacks on Blacks, gays, Moslems and immigrants.

Should that kind of speech be tolerated on campus? Certainly—free speech allows for saying cruel things as well as kind things. But if you are going to say cruel things, don’t be surprised if you are made to feel uncomfortable. You should be. What kind of society would not be offended at attacks on people because of their colour, race, religion or sexual preferences.

I’m not suggesting that the UBC’s plaintiff professors are Charlie Kirks, but if their contrarian comments do cross the line of simple decency they should not be surprised if the response is less than welcome. In any case, they are answering with a lawsuit.

As for the policies being political, I’m no lawyer but conservatives do support reconciliation. After all it was Stephen Harper who apologized to the Indigenous people for the residential schools on our behalf, and he was no leftie. So it’s not just a progressive position.

The university denies that reconciliation or DEI policies generally constitute political activity under the law. It claims further that the professors have not shown proof of harm to either their careers or their liberties.

Be that as it may, the professors will see them in court.