|
Afraid
To Debate
DIGG THIS
I would like
to share with you a correspondence I had with Professor M. Isabel
Medina. She is a colleague of mine, in that she is on the faculty
of the Law School of Loyola New Orleans, while I am its Business
School faculty. However, as you shall see, this exchange of letters
left something to be desired in terms of collegiality. ("Lawfac"
refers to the entire faculty of the law school; "Voigt"
is a former provost, now a professor of sociology; "Locander"
is dean of the business school. I do not know the identity of "drdave."
Faculty@cba.loyno.edu is that of the business school faculty.) The
present correspondence resulted from the publication of this
op-ed.
Letter 1
From: medina
[mailto:medina@loyno.edu]
Sent: Fri 11/21/2008 8:53 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Cc: lawfac@loyno.edu; decuir@loyno.edu; voigt@loyno.edu; locander@loyno.edu;
drdave@loyno.edu
Subject: statements about wage disparities and sex and race
Professor Block,
I must respond
to the statements that you have made publicly while on sabbatical
on the reasons for continuing wage disparities between women and
men and between African Americans and caucasians. I am assuming
that your statements were as reported in the press. I agree that
your views, however wrong and ill considered and unsubstantiated
I find them to be, are within the bounds of academic freedom.
I must take
serious issue, however, with any statements that you have made apparently
to the effect that your views are accepted by the Loyola faculty
and community.
Let me make
clear I do not agree with your views and I do not find them intellectually
defensible. Please make clear in future that when you express these
views you are speaking only for yourself and not for other members
of the Loyola faculty and the Loyola community. Please don't make
claims that Loyola faculty are comfortable with your views or have
no problem with them – that is a patently false and misleading statement
whose falsity can be quickly and simply established by reading the
scholarship that is produced by a number of the law faculty. That
kind of statement may have the effect of impugning others' professional
reputation so I urge you to take more care when ascribing your views
to others.
Sincerely,
M. Isabel Medina
Ferris Family Professor of Law
Loyola University New Orleans
College of Law
Letter 2
– – – Original
Message Follows – – -
From: "Walter Block" <walterblock@cba.loyno.edu
To: <medina@loyno.edu
Cc: <lawfac@loyno.edu, <decuir@loyno.edu, <voigt@loyno.edu,
<locander@loyno.edu,
<drdave@loyno.edu, "Faculty" <Faculty@cba.loyno.edu
Subject: RE: statements about wage disparities and sex and race
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:05:48 -0600
Dear Prof.
Medina:
No, wait, please
ignore that letter I just sent out. That form letter. I was in the
midst of answering yet another 100 letters in response to my talk
in Baltimore (I'm now way over 500 responses), when I realize that
this one was a bit different. It is from a Loyola New Orleans faculty
colleague. As such, it certainly deserves a detailed answer. So,
please forgive me for sending you that form letter.
Let me now,
please, respond substantively to your letter.
First, it is
a heroic assumption on your part to think that the press accurately
reports complex issues. As you can see from this,
that is not fully the case in the present controversy.
Second, thanks
for your support of my academic freedom.
Third, with
regard to my claim that my "views are accepted by the Loyola faculty
and community":
This is rather
complex. I maintain that my "views are accepted by the Loyola faculty
and community" IN THE SENSE that my colleagues at Loyola New Orleans
pretty much full well know my views, which I have not been at all
shy about sharing for the past 7 years on campus (I must have written
at least a dozen op eds in the Maroon), AND YET they saw fit to
grant me the Dux Academicus award, and, also, awards at both the
college (of business) and university level for research. When I
made this claim, which I don't think can be denied, I was trying
to compare Loyola NO, with Loyola Baltimore, much to the credit
of the former. That is, that Loyola NO, but NOT Loyola Baltimore,
support the academic freedom of colleagues. So, yes, in THAT sense,
all of my colleagues at Loyola NO (well, except for Marcus Smith
and Julian Wasserman, who, in their response to Bill Barnett's and
my Maroon op ed on arming the co-eds called for our silencing; here,
they operated as if they were on the faculty of Loyola Baltimore,
not Loyola NO) "support" me and my views.
However, on
the other hand, I do not for a minute believe, nor have I EVER stated
(any newspaper report to the contrary is wrong) that it is my opinion
that views my are accepted by the Loyola faculty and community"
IN THE SENSE that my colleagues at Loyola New Orleans AGREE WITH
ME ON THE SPECIFICS NOR THE SUBSTANCE. Certainly, I would not be
so bold, foolish and rash as to think, even in my wildest deliriums,
that my views are accepted by the Loyola faculty and community"
IN THE SENSE that my colleagues think along the same lines as I
do with regard to "reasons for continuing wage disparities between
women and men and between African Americans and caucasians." This
is just plain silly. If any journalist said I said this, I will
be happy to clarify the record.
Please, do
send me the evidence you have that can buttress your claim in this
regard; that is, please send me either the url, or a hard copy of
the report to this effect. There must be some REASON, or evidence,
that led you to write your letter to me . I would be very grateful
to you if you sent me this material, so that I can clarify the record.
If you cannot supply this material, you will have to forgive me
for wondering why you wrote me as you did.
In this letter
of yours to me you state that my "views (are) wrong and ill considered
and unsubstantiated" as far as the "continuing wage disparities
between women and men and between African Americans and caucasians."
In some circles,
not mine, of course, those can be construed as "fighting words."
After all, "wrong and ill considered and unsubstantiated" is a pretty
harsh assessment. However, in my academic and intellectual circles,
those words can be and are by me construed as an invitation to dialogue,
to discuss, as members of a scholarly community, these issues. If
your letter was a private one to me, I would have invited you to
lunch, or dinner, where we could amicably discuss these matters
and issues.
But your letter
was not a private one to me alone.
Rather, you
copied all your law school colleagues, plus a few others, plus my
deans. Accordingly, I am copying my own colleagues at the b school,
plus a few others, and hereby CHALLENGE YOU TO A PUBLIC DEBATE ON
THESE ISSUES. Hopefully, this will be as amicable as our private
discussion, under other circumstances, would have been.
We are both
members of the scholarly community. We have a difference of opinion
on important issues, which you chose to publicize. It is the duty
of academics to get to the truth of matters of this sort. I am a
firm believer that public debates are one good way to get that proverbial
one inch closer to the truth. Plus, we don't have a football team.
Students like to see (proverbial) professorial blood on the floor.
I'm sure a debate between us on these issues would attract a lot
of student attention.
I'm on sabbatical
this academic year. But, I'll be on campus on 3/10/09, for about
a month, and would be available for a debate during those weeks.
So, please let me know if you are interested in taking part in such
an event.
Best regards,
Walter E. Block,
Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics
College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504)864-7934
fax: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
Letter 3
From: medina
[mailto:medina@loyno.edu]
Sent: Sun 11/23/2008 2:48 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: statements about wage disparities and sex and race
Dr. Block,
I prefer to do my scholarship and my debate of serious ideas in
writing. From my perspective, you were speaking out of line when
you claimed some sponsorship or sympathy by all of the Loyola NO
community for your views.
The fact that
you've received awards, etc., really has nothing to do with that.
Please make
it clear when you speak in public that you speak for yourself and
not the entire Loyola faculty.
M. Isabel Medina
Ferris Family Professor of Law
Loyola University New Orleans
Letter 4
– – – Original
Message Follows – – -
From: "Walter Block" <walterblock@cba.loyno.edu
To: <medina@loyno.edu, <lawfac@loyno.edu, <decuir@loyno.edu,
<voigt@loyno.edu, <locander@loyno.edu, <drdave@loyno.edu
Cc: "Faculty" <Faculty@cba.loyno.edu
Subject: RE: statements about wage disparities and sex and race
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:38:34 -0600
Dear Prof.
Medina:
Thanks for
your response.
I greatly regret
your preference to confine your debate of serious ideas to writing.
Our students will be the losers. I'm sure hundreds of them would
have attended such a public (verbal) debate between us. However,
I respect your decision. Public debate is not for everyone, although
I would have imagined that legal academics would have welcomed that
more than others. (I have for YEARS challenged members of the sociology
dept, others with a so called feminist viewpoint, to debate me on
these issues. It would appear that you are very far from being the
only faculty member who prefers not to engage in public debate.)
On the other
hand, there is still a charge of yours against me outstanding, that
you repeat in this second letter of yours. To wit "From my perspective,
you were speaking out of line when you claimed some sponsorship
or sympathy by all of the Loyola NO community for your views." In
my previous letter, see below, I asked you to provide some EVIDENCE
that I am guilty of stating this blatant untruth.
I note that
you have not complied with this eminently reasonable request of
mine. I do not favor libel laws, and have written extensively about
this. Indeed, I oppose them, as a libertarian. Thus, I shall not
be suing you for libel.
But just because
I take this position does not mean that I favor libel. I think it
is improper. It is impolite. It is certainly problematic on the
part of a member of a community of scholars, such as yourself. You
make a charge against me, call it X. I ask you to provide evidence
that I am guilty of X. Instead of complying, you repeat this charge,
and ask me to cease engaging in X ("Please make it clear when you
speak in public that you speak for yourself and not the entire Loyola
faculty.") Do you not find this objectionable? How would you like
it if I publicly charged you with doing something untoward? Then,
when you asked me to provide evidence for this claim, instead of
complying, I reiterated this charge, and again called upon you to
cease? I cannot imagine you would much appreciate being treated
in that manner.
Let me say
it loudly and clearly. I have never ever claimed that my views are
supported by the entire Loyola faculty, or community. Indeed, the
very idea is preposterous. I know full well that most members of
our faculty do not share my libertarian views.
Since you have
not done your homework on this (supported your accusation against
me), let me do it for you. As far as I am aware, the ONLY thing
I have EVER said on this
topic is as follows:
"Second, with
Loyola University New Orleans, where I have been since 2001. Here,
they awarded me tenure, and a named endowed chair. Although this
university is dominated by professors of a very different ideology
than mine, and they full well know my positions on politics and
economics (it is not in my nature to be shy and retiring about
issues I think are of utmost importance), they went so far as to
recognize my research with awards at both the College of Business
and University level. And to top it off, I was the recipient of
the prestigious Dux
Academicus
Award, given annually to the academic leader of the faculty. See
on this here
and here."
(Source: Block, Walter. 2008. "The
Idea Police vs. Walter Block: A (Not So) Funny Thing Happened To
Me in Baltimore." November 18.
How you can
distill out of this the claim that I said that I speak for the entire
Loyola faculty on this or any other matter is beyond me. Indeed,
I said the very OPPOSITE, in this publication: "this university
is dominated by professors of a very different ideology than mine."
But, perhaps,
it is not this statement that led you to write me in the first place,
upbraiding me for my "being out of line." If so, I think you have
a moral obligation (not a legal one) to furnish me, and the others
you have written, with evidence that I am guilty of what you have
charged me with.
Yours truly,
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Letter 5
From:
medina [mailto:medina@loyno.edu]
Sent: Mon 11/24/2008 7:58 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: statements about wage disparities and sex and
race
Dr. Block,
I was responding to a news article that appeared in Inside Higher
Education, I believe, and what you were quoted as stating in that
article. If the article contained
a miscommunication or misrepresentation of your ideas, you should
follow up with them as I am sure they would be happy to print a
retraction or correction.
I don't consider
views that the reason there are wage disparities between African
Americans and caucasians is difference in I.Q. between the races,
to be serious, supported by solid empirical evidence and credible.
Isabel Medina
Letter 6
To: Prof. Medina
Cc: lawfac@loyno.edu;
decuir@loyno.edu; voigt@loyno.edu; locander@loyno.edu; drdave@loyno.edu;
Faculty@cba.loyno.edu
Dear Prof.
Medina:
I note that
your most recent letter to me was addressed to me only, and did
not go to the others who were previously copied on it. Please, let
us continue to copy ALL of the people on this correspondence to
whom you copied your original charge against me, see below. That
is, the following: lawfac@loyno.edu; decuir@loyno.edu; voigt@loyno.edu;
locander@loyno.edu; drdave@loyno.edu. Plus, I have included my colleagues
in the b school, since you copied your colleagues in the law school.
As well I have been copying additional individuals, since you have
done so too. It seems unfair to make a charge against me, in front
of a large group, and not carry through on this in its entirety
to them. That is, it seems improper to me for you to make a PUBLIC
accusation, and then continue in PRIVATE. In addition, it is my
understanding that only you, as a member of the law school faculty,
but not me, can reach them by use of lawfac@loyno.edu. Is this true?
Please, in your reply to this letter, do copy all law school professors.
I must now
thank you, finally, at last, after several requests of mine, for
offering some EVIDENCE concerning your allusion to my supposed "speaking
out of line when you claimed some sponsorship or sympathy by all
of the Loyola NO community for your views."
You offer the
following, as exhibit A, if I understand you correctly.
The only relevant
paragraph from that interview (please correct me if you think I
am overlooking something else therein) is this:
"At least at
his home institution in New Orleans, he said, there was no resistance
from faculty. 'The only people I’m getting in trouble with so far
are the politically correct thought police at Maryland,' he noted,
adding that he was willing to debate members of the Loyola College
faculty on the issues."
About this,
a few words.
Suppose our
positions were reversed. Suppose that is you were quoted in some
newspaper, or blog, as saying that every professor on the Loyola
University New Orleans campus agreed with your own views on law
and political economy. Stipulate that you and I do not agree on
all matters of law and political economy. Would I have written you
a letter along the lines of yours to me of 11/21/08, see above?
Would I have copied numerous people on such a letter? To ask this
is to answer it: no, I would have not. Instead, I would have
- sent YOU
alone (not copying everyone and his uncle) the material in question
on the basis of which your statement MIGHT be made
- ASKED you
if this cited material accurately actually reflected your views.
I would NOT
have said this to you: "I am assuming that your statements were
as reported in the press," as you said to me in your letter of 11/21/08,
above. Perhaps your experience with journalists is radically different
than mine, but, when they report something so PATENTLY WRONG and
PREPOSTEROUS as me saying that ALL faculty members of Loyola University
New Orleans agree with me on matters of law and political economy,
that I am in effect the spokesman for the entire faculty, the rational
person would have taken this with a grain of salt. A LARGE grain
of salt.
Now let us
consider the specifics of this exhibit A statement:
"At least at
his home institution in New Orleans, he said, there was no resistance
from faculty. 'The only people I’m getting in trouble with so far
are the politically correct thought police at Maryland,' he noted,
adding that he was willing to debate members of the Loyola College
faculty on the issues."
 In
my view, this verbiage is at BEST (for your interpretation) ambiguous.
It does NOT clearly state that I think that all faculty members
of Loyola University New Orleans agree with me on matters of law
and political economy, such as concerning the male – female, or
the white – black, wage gap, and that I am their spokesman for this
or any other matter. I see your point, though. With enough body
English, and an interpretation sympathetic enough to your reading,
one COULD distill out of this statement something akin to what you
are charging me with. But this would be just one possible interpretation.
Another, I think far better interpretation, one that I certainly
meant to convey to this journalist is this: that while the faculty
and administration of Loyola College (Maryland) ran roughshod over
my academic freedom, my own colleagues at Loyola University (New
Orleans) were not at all like that. Instead, they gave me awards,
knowing full well my positions on matters of law and political economy;
instead, my dean sent me a letter of support, not necessarily for
my substantive position; rather, only, for my academic freedom.
That is, "resistance" and "getting in trouble with" had nothing
to do with the substantive issues, and everything to do with academic
freedom, support for inquiry no matter how unpopular. I was attempting
to compliment Loyola University New Orleans, while denigrating Loyola
College Maryland, not on substantive issues, but merely, and only,
on matters of academic freedom. E.g., there are politically correct
thought police at Maryland, but NOT at New Orleans.
 How
to resolve this issue? Tell you what; I've got a deal for you. One
of the readers of this correspondence between us, a graduate of
Loyola Law School in the 1980s, wrote the following to me:
"Considering
it was Professor Medina who raised the issue of whether you claimed
to speak on behalf of the entire Loyola faculty, I trust she will
either substantiate the assertion, or withdraw it with her apology."
In my judgment,
you have not "substantiated" your assertion. Rather, you have finally,
after many requests of mine of you, pointed to an ambiguous statement
that might or might not substantiate it, depending upon interpretation.
In my view, this is at best for your side, a gray area. So, if you
will withdraw your assertion that I claimed to speak for the entire
Loyola New Orleans professoriate, and apologize to me for making
this wild eyed accusation to many other people before having the
courtesy to check with me first about it, I will attempt to get
the author of this piece to edit it.
The edited
version would read as follows (added material in CAPS):
 "At
least at his home institution in New Orleans, he said, there was
no resistance from faculty. 'The only people I’m getting in trouble
with so far are the politically correct thought police at Maryland,'
he noted, adding that he was willing to debate members of the Loyola
College faculty on the issues. BLOCK FURTHER ADDED: WHILE MY COLLEAGUES
AT LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS SUPPORT MY ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO
ADDRESS SUCH CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES AND TO OFFER MY OWN PERSPECTIVE,
IT IS BY NO MEANS THE CASE THAT THEY AGREE WITH MY ANALYSIS OR CONCLUSIONS;
INDEED, MANY OF THEM DISAGREE."
Alternatively,
if you can suggest any other emendations that will get this point
across more clearly, I will be very receptive to your editing.
Yours truly,
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
December
3, 2008
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable and the newly released Labor
Economics From A Free Market Perspective.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
