|
Further
Developments on the Issue of Social Justice in Baltimore
DIGG THIS
Previous
installments in this thread can be found here,
here
and here.
Today’s
contribution consists three parts.
First,
a correspondence between me and Mr. Ted Quant, who is Director of
the Twomey Center Loyola
University. Here is its mission: "The Twomey Center for
Peace Through Justice seeks to shape social justice consciousness
through education, and to take action on critical social problems
confronting society. The Twomey Center acts as a catalyst for research
and action on critical issues of workers' rights, racism, poverty
and justice. Our mission is achieved through action, reflection
and dialogue generating community partnerships."
The
second part of this op-ed consists of a correspondence I had with
Fr. Kevin Wildes, S.J., president of the Loyola University New Orleans.
Note the very, very, very, different reaction to my Baltimore speech
in this case.
The
third part is a correspondence between me and, not to put too fine
a point on it, a kangaroo court at Loyola University New Orleans.
Ia.
Quant to Block
From:
quant@loyno.edu [mailto:quant@loyno.edu]
Sent: Thu 11/27/2008 9:09 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Ted Quant's letter to the editor
Dear
Dr. Block.
Here
is a copy of a letter I am sending to the Times-Picayune in response
to James Gill article. I don't know if they will print it or not
but I wanted you to know my opinion from me directly.
Happy
Thanksgiving.
Ted
Quant
Twomey Center Loyola University
861-5831
Letter
to the editor:
James
Gill sees opposition to Dr. Walter Block's biased assertions as
contrary to academic freedom. I disagree. Dr. Block is free to present
his views and his peers and others are free to challenge and condemn
them.
Block
asserts that Blacks and women are less productive than white men
because women have only "average" intelligence needed for motherhood
but not for "leading corporations;" he cites discredited research
that asserts Blacks have lower IQ's than whites.
Apparently
the havoc wrought by 500 years of pseudoscientific "proofs" of white
supremacy, is not sufficiently instructive. Millions of native peoples
were slaughtered, Africans enslaved, while theologians debated whether
they had souls or were even human. The racial theories of American
eugenics led to forced sterilizations and Nazi racial policies that
categorized certain peoples as "life unworthy of life." With great
Aryan efficiency, millions were murdered.
There
have always been academicians ready to provide "scientific" proof
of white supremacy and a justification for racial and gender discrimination.
Will the next step be libertarians demanding the repeal of civil
right laws to allow discrimination against those Block deems unproductive?
This is the logic and legacy of such ideologically driven analysis
and bankrupt research.
Ted
Quant
Director, Twomey Center Loyola University
cc. Dr. Block
Ib.
Block to Quant
– – - Original Message Follows – – -
From: "Walter Block" <walterblock@cba.loyno.edu
To: <quant@loyno.edu
Subject: RE: Ted Quant's letter to the editor
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:06:46 -0600
Dear
Prof. Quant:
I just reread Gill's piece. I searched, in vain, for a statement
of his according to which "James Gill sees opposition to Dr. Walter
Block's biased assertions as contrary to academic freedom."
Please give me the exact place in Gill's piece where he says this.
If you would, give it to me in quote marks, as a direct quote from
his op-ed.
Yours truly,
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
Ic.
Quant to Block
From:
quant@loyno.edu [mailto:quant@loyno.edu]
Sent: Sat 11/29/2008 1:24 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: Ted Quant's letter to the editor
Dear
Prof. Block,
Thank
you for the promotion to professor but since I have not earned it,
mister is a respectable enough title for me.
I
have reread Mr. Gill’s editorial. In fact he did not say that he
"sees opposition to Dr. Walter Block’s biased assertions as
contrary to academic freedom." I inferred that from my reading
of the editorial and take responsibility for any misrepresentation
of his meaning.
However,
what did he say that led me to infer that he was critical of opposition
to your views and saw that as contrary to the spirit of academic
freedom? I inferred it from this sentence: "Ideas contrary
to fashionable preconceptions are always likely to throw academia
into a fit and this time it is a New Orleans professor who has the
bien pensant crowd howling for blood." And I inferred it from
this sentence: "The notion that campuses should be receptive
to all ideas, even ones that threaten sacred cows, is somewhat out
of fashion, Block was lucky he… wasn’t shouted down."
Mr.
Gill uses loaded words and phrases like, "contrary," "preconceptions,"
"fit," "howling," "blood," "out
of fashion," and the one I loved the most, "the bien pensant
crowd," to describe those who may disagree with your views.
I had to look up "bien pensant." Mr. Gill is a master
of word economy in this skillful put down. God he is good! Got to
give him props for this. Here are the meanings I found for "bien
pensant:" self-righteous, moralistic, sanctimonious, preachy,
holier than thou, unctuously hypocritical, mealy-mouthed.
Obviously,
I cannot provide you with an exact quote from Gill’s editorial that
says specifically what I conclude from it, but I contend that an
accomplished writer like Gill has very competently conveyed his
views through his use of loaded terms to describe those who disagree
with you.
Honestly
I can’t read Mr. Gill’s mind, and if I mis-read his meaning, that’s
on me. But, frankly my issue is with you, not Mr. Gill.
When
I heard about what you said, I googled your name to learn more about
your side of the story. I read your comments and your challenge
to anyone to debate you, and your calling people cowards for not
confronting you directly. I wondered why no one has done this. Where
are Dr. Block’s academic peers – economist, historians, and sociologist?
Why the silence? And in particular why is there not a peep from
Loyola New Orleans? Frankly, I felt the silence deafening and embarrassing.
I even read where you said no one at Loyola had raised any objections.
And then I read Mr. Gill’s editorial. Credentials or not, I felt
I had to say something.
You
call people cowards for not debating you. Maybe they are, maybe
they are not. Maybe they know something I don’t know that makes
silence make sense. I believe you debated Bill Quigley some years
ago. I didn’t attend that debate but Bill told me that you are a
formidable and smart debater.
That
aside, in my opinion, you display a kind of cowardice I remember
seeing as a child. We called it "throwing a rock and hiding
your hand." An example of this is when you cite racist studies
like The Bell Curve as possible explanations for your productivity
studies, and then say something like, (I don’t have the exact quote)
"…but I am an economist, that’s not my expertise." You
insulate yourself from someone else’s racist study so you don’t
have to defend it, but never fail to trot it out when you want to
make a point.
As
I ponder why others haven’t spoken out I wonder if it is not because
they are smart enough to know that you are baiting them because
controversy is your forte’ and builds your reputation within your
ideological circles, sort of like John McCain picking Sarah Palin.
The more inflammatory her rhetoric, the more support she got from
the so-called base. Harry Lee often did the same thing; every time
elections came around he would do some outrageously racist thing
to get out the racist vote. Do you have a book coming out? Did I
fall into the trap?
I
am not an economist and have not studied productivity statistics
or IQ variances, but this I know: Intelligence is not the monopoly
of any race or gender. There are smart and dumb people of every
race and as well moral and immoral, just and unjust, hardworking
and lazy. In fact race is a pretty bogus concept altogether, but
that’s another story.
When
I was a child growing up in Washington DC in the 1950’s, everyday
I heard the racist harangue of southern politicians against integration
with the inferior "Negra." They also would present their
evidence of black inferiority. I remember Medgar Evers’ murder,
and the Jet magazine with the picture of Emmett Till on its cover,
and Little Rock. To these things, my mother would say things like,
"Prejudice is stupid. There is no race better than any other.
We should all be treated equal. Those people are ignorant."
Soon
I came to conclude that all white men with southern accents were
ignorant racists like all those I saw on TV. I had developed my
own racist stereotype. But after eight weeks of basic training at
Fort Polk, Louisiana in 1966, I learned that you can’t judge a book
by its cover. Some white southern men were exactly as stupid and
racist as I expected them to be, and others were decent human beings
who became my good friends.
Studies
that claim to show that one race or gender is genetically superior
to another in productivity or intelligence are bogus. Since you
don’t claim to know why there are differences in your study, you
cite old racist and sexist claims and then say "but that’s
not my expertise."
I
have some experience with the question of productivity. It is not
scientific. I guess it is anecdotal evidence. It is my life’s experience.
I
have worked as a longshoremen, laborer in a sugar refinery, and
several other industrial jobs and have been a consultant and management
trainer to many corporations. When I started working as a laborer
in a sugar refinery shipping department, it took 5 men to load a
truck and 8 to load a box car, and it took about 4 hours to load
a truck and a day for a box car. The company installed a palletizing
machine and a shrink warp machine. They eliminated the laborers
who loaded and unloaded pallets, put a few of us on folk lifts,
and then one or two men could load a truck in less than an hour
and a box car in half a day. That is what I call an increase in
productivity. Now there were white workers, black workers and later
women who loaded these trucks. I don’t see how our race or gender
in any way impacted the speed with which we loaded those trucks.
What
I know is that when you multiply 70 or 80 workers per shift times
3 shifts, and count how many eventually lost their jobs, it was
significant. Then when you multiply the jobs lost on the river where
those trucks and trains used to be unloaded and reloaded and unloaded
and reloaded to get the sugar from the refinery to consumers all
over world, thousands of jobs were loss.
Those
workers were productive workers whose abilities and willingness
to work did not change. The environment changed. They had not changed
but they were no longer productive. They had the same genes, the
same intelligence, and the same desire to be productive and to work.
They were black and white, men and women. Their IQ’s or women’s
dual roles in home and workplace had nothing to do with this.
If
these displaced workers continued to seek work as laborers or forklift
drivers, there would be too many of them for such employment. What
this might have to do with race and gender productivity is that
a higher percentage of these workers were black.
Since
coming to Loyola I have been invited by many major corporations,
and government agencies to do management training and diversity
training, usually after they have been sued for millions of dollars
because of outright provable discrimination or harassment cases.
In some places I had the chance to work with an agency or company
for several years and had the opportunity to see dynamics firsthand.
I saw good managers take the lead and really transform the work
environment and in doing so had their "metrics" go up.
Metrics, or productivity measures, increased as the discriminatory
and oppressive behaviors were stopped.
I
saw firsthand what women had to put up with, especially in non-traditional
jobs ("men’s jobs"). Their productivity was purposely
sabotaged and they were put down constantly.
Women
have had to withstand such mistreatment in the workplace, but many
are fighting back. In one case involving harassment of women, the
company plant manager took action. One of the women became a leader
in the fight for equity and just treatment demonstrated courage,
management and leadership skills, sensitivity and awareness of the
forms of oppression operating in the plant, all of which made the
business less productive and the plant a more dangerous place to
work. The plant manager promoted her to a position in the Human
Resources Department and the bigots ended up being evaluated by
her. God is good!
In
a similar story where two managers of equal status had to work together
on safety and other issues, the racist white manager consistently
sabotaged the black manager. For example, he told the 40-50 men
who reported directly to him that they did not have to follow the
black manager’s directions. This company had kept blacks out of
management and leadership positions for years. Once the sabotage
became clear to higher management, the racist manager was reassigned;
his new job consisted of sitting in a room watching the red and
green lights of an automated process and throwing a switch now and
then when the light turned green.
The
black manager replaced him as head of the crew. The metric (productivity)
improved under the black manager.
The
lower productivity of blacks and women dealing with racist and sexist
environments impacted the productivity and safety of the entire
company. The solutions to the productivity problems had nothing
to do with IQ’s or women’s dual roles as workers and mothers. The
problems were problems of management, leadership, systems, environment,
and values.
I’m
rambling now and need to spend some time with the family so I will
stop.
Let
me close with this thought, I will trust my experience over your
statistics.
Sincerely,
Ted
Quant
Howling bien pensant
Id.
Block to Quant
From:
Walter Block
Sent: Sat 11/29/2008 2:15 PM
To: quant@loyno.edu
Subject: RE: Ted Quant's letter to the editor
Dear
Mr. Quant:
Thanks
for sharing your thoughts on these matters with me.
I
have several responses.
One,
I think it is unfair to blame Gill for something he did NOT say.
You ADMIT he did not actually SAY what you accuse him of. Shall
you be revising your letter to the editor of the Times Pic to reflect
this? Or, has it already been published? This is a very important
point. If academic discourse is to properly occur, people must only
be held accountable for what they actually said, NOT for things
they did NOT say.
Two,
can you please give me your source for your claim that I called
people "cowards" for refusing to debate me. That is, did I use that
specific word? Or, as in the case of Gill, is this something you
think I said, but that I did not really say?
Three,
what is YOUR explanation for the fact that blacks earn less than
whites, females earn less than males? Is it that employers are mostly
whites and males, and they discriminate against blacks and females?
If so, how do you account for the fact that the female-male wage
gap virtually disappears when only never-marrieds are compared?
If so, how do you account for the fact that if blacks were really
underpaid compared to whites of equal productivity, a non-discriminating
employer could earn more profits by hiring one of the former than
one of the latter; thus, the non-discriminating employers would
be able to drive out of business, and into bankruptcy (assuming
no government bailouts) employers who discriminated on racial grounds.
If
you want to enter into a dialogue with me on these issues, please
stick to the point. Do not accuse me of having anything to do with
"Millions of native peoples were slaughtered, Africans enslaved,
while theologians debated whether they had souls or were even human.
The racial theories of American eugenics led to forced sterilizations
and Nazi racial policies that categorized certain peoples as ‘life
unworthy of life.’ With great Aryan efficiency, millions were murdered."
That is, let us keep our eye on the ball. I am an economist. A social
scientist. I am trying to explain a certain set of economic facts:
the wage gap between men and women, whites and blacks. These other
issues, have nothing to do with explanations for these wage gaps.
Yours
truly,
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
Afterward.
Mr. Quant’s letter to the editor of the Times Picayune was indeed
published, despite the misgivings I had about it, and shared with
him. It may be found here.
I
chose not to respond to his statements about productivity, his experiences
in the labor market, his views on discrimination, etc. My thought
was that before civil discourse could occur, certain minimum requirements
must first be met. They were not, in this case.
II.
Here is my correspondence with Fr. Kevin Wildes, S.J., president
of Loyola University New Orleans. I am GREATLY indebted to him for
his support.
IIa
Wildes to Block
From:
Kevin Wildes
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 6:06 PM
To: 'block@loyno.edu'
Cc: locander@loyno.edu
Subject: FW: Loyola Response
Walter
I
sent this letter to the TP. Wanted you to see it in case it gets
published
All
the best!
Kw,sj
From:
Kevin Wildes
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1:22 PM
To: 'letters@timespicayune.com'
Cc: Kevin Wildes
Subject: Loyola Response
Re.
"A tough sell in the market-place of ideas," Other Opinions,
Nov. 26.
Dear
Editor,
I
want to be very clear that while Professor Walter Block, the Harold
E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Chair in Economics, is a member of Loyola
University New Orleans’ Economics Department, he is not the Chair
of the Department nor does he speak for the university. However,
like any American, under the First Amendment of the Constitution,
Professor Block is entitled to freedom of speech and expression.
Universities,
like Loyola, are places of argument and disagreement. They are laboratories
of free expression and academic inquiry. This is how we advance
knowledge and learning. There are many members of the University
community who disagree with Professor Block. In fact, Loyola will
host a colloquium on the views expressed by Professor Block in the
near future.
Loyola
enjoys a robust history of serving students from all economic and
ethnic backgrounds and educating them to lead extraordinary lives.
All are welcome here and all thrive here. One professor’s views
do not a university make.
Sincerely
yours,
Kevin
Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D. 1 December 2008
President
IIb.
Block to Wildes
– – -Original Message – – -
From: Walter Block <walterblock@cba.loyno.edu>
To: Kevin Wildes
Sent: Tue Dec 02 18:23:42 2008
Subject: RE: Loyola Response
Dear
Kevin:
I
am very grateful to you, personally, and, indeed, to the entire
professoriat at Loyno. We all (with the exception of two professors,
see this: ) share a vision of the university as a place where ideas
may be explored in a polite scholarly manner; where no member of
the community is forced to hold his tongue, or his pen. There is
such a difference between you and Fr. Linnane, S.J., on this issue,
that you and he seem not only not to be in the same Jesuit order,
nor even to share the same Catholic religion: you two don't appear
to come from the same planet. How delighted I am that I work for
you, not him.
Best
regards,
Walter
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
IIc.
Wildes to Block
Thanks!
kw, sj
President's Office
Loyola University
6363 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70118
P:
504-865-3847
F: 504-865-3851
E: wildesk@loyno.edu
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE: This email message, including attachments, is for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information.
If you would like to share the information in the message please
contact the author. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and delete the message.
Sent
from my Blackberry Handheld.
Afterword:
the two professors at Loyola University who do not support academic
freedom are Marcus Smith and Julian Wasserman, who called for the
silencing of me and Bill Barnett, when we wrote a letter in the
campus newspaper, the Maroon, calling for the arming of co-eds in
response to a spate of violence against women on campus. See on
this here
and here.
IIIa.
Committee to Block
From:
raphael@loyno.edu
Subject: Affirmative Action Diversity Tast Force Statemtne
Info:
In reference to the Times Picayune article, "A Tough Sell in the
Market Place of Ideas," by James Gill dated November 26, 2008.
As
Loyola University's Diversity Committee, we are dedicated to promoting
an appreciation for the valuable contributions of all, instilling
in every one of our students a desire to pursue excellence and to
be women and men in solidarity with others. We also hold to the
Jesuit ideal of rigorous intellectual examination in the pursuit
of truth and therefore, defend the right of academic freedom. However,
it is our responsibility to respond critically to statements made
by members of Loyola University that run counter to our commitment
to inclusion and that marginalize women and African Americans, a
majority of our community.
Professor
Walter Block's reductionist statements about the productivity of
African Americans and women in the marketplace ignore critical factors
and structural patterns of inequality. His flawed remarks are dangerous,
fueling those with prejudices to confirm their biased views. We
must recognize the reality of racism and sexism in our society,
whose impact has had long-lasting consequences in the lives of African
Americans and women.
The
Diversity Committee encourages all members of the University to
use this event as a catalyst to engage in meaningful dialogue that
addresses these issues in a way that moves us closer to our Jesuit
ideals.
Affirmative
Action/Diversity Task
Ted Quant
Lydia Voigt
Wing Fok
Lisa Martin
Al Alcazar
James Hobbs
Kurt Bindewald
Artemis Preeshl
Karen Reichard
Anthony Decuir
Source:
http://www.loyno.edu/spam-digest/showevent.php?id=21858
IIIb.
Block replies to committee
From:
Walter Block
To: AACTF
Re: statement
cc: faculty@loyno.edu; student@loyno.edu
 I
have several questions with regard to your "statement."
I would very much appreciate an answer.
1.
You accuse me of violating "our commitment to inclusion
(of) women and African Americans, a majority of our community."
Is this charge based on anything I have written, published, spoken,
or, it is based on what others have attributed to me? If the former,
please provide me with EVIDENCE that substantiates this charge?
If the latter, as I strongly suspect, given the first line of your
"statement," please tell me, specifically, what Gill says
that lead you to this conclusion
2.
What is a "reductionist statement"? Can you please cite
one or several of this sort that I have made? That is, offer the
exact words I have written, published or spoken, that are offensive
in this regard.
3.
Which "critical factors and structural patterns of inequality"
did I ignore? Please be specific. Did I ignore them in my many publications
on this subject? Or, did Gill ignore them in his short op ed?
4.
Which of my "remarks" are "flawed"? Are these
"remarks" made by me or Gill? Please specify.
5.
You speak of "meaningful dialogue." Would this by any
chance include me? If so, I would be delighted. I have offered to
debate these issues, for several years now, in public forums such
as the one in which you delivered your "statement," but,
so far at least, there have been no takers. Do you have anyone in
mind?
 6.
You mention "diversity." Is this concern of yours limited
to gender, race, sexual preference, disability, ethnicity, etc.,
or, does it also include ideology? Can we expect affirmative action
from your committee for those who espouse laissez faire capitalism,
economic freedom, private property rights?
7.
I take it that this "statement" has been approved of by
your committee. Was this done by a majority vote, or, was it unanimously
approved of by all whose names appear below? If the former, what
was the vote? Was it 8 to 2? 9 to 1? 7 to 3? 6 to 4? Can you please
tell me which of you voted for and against this "statement"?
8.
It is customary, when making charges against scholars in an academic
community, to offer chapter and verse. Yet, I search, in vain, for
any quote marks in your "statement" that you attribute
to me. Please, in your response to me, would you be good enough
to make good this oversight of yours?
9.
These are very serious charges you level against me. Do you agree
that in making them, you have a moral obligation to furnish me with
the information I am seeking, above? Do you agree that it is irresponsible
to make charges without offering specifics? That it is irresponsible
to make charges against me based on what others (e.g., Gill) have
written about me, and not based on my own words?
 Afterward
on III. Who are these people? Who is this jury of my peers?
All are employed by Loyola University New Orleans
Ted
Quant; we have already met him; see above
Lydia Voigt; Professor of sociology, former Provost of the University
Wing Fok; Professor of management; we shall soon meet him in greater
detail
Lisa Martin; Instructor, School of Mass Communication: Racial/Ethnic
Issues
Al Alcazar; Assistant Professor Department of Education and Counseling;
described as "social justice champion"
James Hobbs; Associate Professor, Reference Librarian
Kurt Bindewald; Director of University Ministry
Artemis Preeshl; Assistant Professor, Department of Theatre Arts
& Dance
Karen Reichard; Director, Loyola University of New Orleans’ Women’s
Resource Center
Anthony Decuir; Professor of music therapy and interim dean of the
College of Music and Fine Arts
One
last point. Their letter to me was published on a web that goes
to every single member of the faculty and staff, and to all students.
I have sent my reply to them (above) to the same source two days
ago, and so far it has not appeared there.
December
6, 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
|
