|
J’Accuse
(Walter Block seeks justice from the Affirmative
Action Diversity Task Force, Loyola University New Orleans;
hah!)
DIGG THIS
TO: Mr. Ted
Quant, Director of Loyola's Twomey Center for Peace through Justice;
members of the Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force, Loyola University
New Orleans: Mr. Ted Quant, Professors Lydia Voigt, Wing Fok, Lisa
Martin, Al Alcazar, James Hobbs, Kurt Bindewald, Artemis Preeshl,
Karen Reichard, Anthony Decuir
CC: Ed Kvet,
Provost, Loyola University New Orleans; Bill Locander and David
Luechauer, Deans, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans;
Fr. Kevin Wildes, S.J., President, Loyola University New Orleans;
Roger White, Associate Provost, Loyola University New Orleans; plus
the entire Loyola University New Orleans community (well, at least
as much of it as I can reach with this present message that cannot
be broadcast to the entire student and faculty list because it would
be considered "personal"; hint, hint: please pass this
on to all and sundry, particularly the law school faculty)
FROM: Professor
Walter Block
Mr. Quant,
I hereby formally charge you, personally, with bias, racism, sexism,
anti Catholicism and anti Semitism for that letter
to the editor you published at the Times Picayune on 12/3/08;
and, also, I now make the same complaint against you and all other
members of the Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force, Loyola University
New Orleans, for your/their (undated) "statement"
about me.
I am writing
to you now because of this automatic message I received from Professor
Martin, in response to a letter I wrote on 12/18/08 to all the members
of the Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force, Loyola University
New Orleans, including her, and then another addressed solely to
her:
"Professor
Martin will be out of the office until early February. Should you
have a bias-related incident, please report it to Ted Quant, Director
of Loyola's Twomey Center for Peace through Justice. Quant@loyno.edu.
Phone (504) 861-5831."
Previous to
reading this, I didn’t realize that the calumny that has been heaped
upon me of late by you, personally, and by you and your colleagues
on the Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force constituted "bias,"
plus racism, sexism, anti Catholicism and anti Semitism, and that
there was an avenue open to me to seek redress for this vituperation.
Before I elaborate
on the indictment against you and your fellow Task Force members,
let me make several preliminary comments.
I. First, here
are the two letters, in their entirety, that prompted Prof. Martin’s
automatic message, and my present response (these two letters were
prompted by an initial longer letter, which I reproduce here).
12/18/08 1pm
Dear Students:
Please read
this very important essay by Tom
DiLorenzo about my recent speech at Loyola College in Maryland.
I would appreciate it if you could circulate this as widely as possible
on campus. I would be delighted if the Task Force on diversity would
read this; I am copying them on this message. I wonder if they will
read DiLorenzo; they have not seen fit to reply to the list of questions
I put to them in response to their "statement." This op ed of Prof
DiLorenzo's is crucially important, since he exhibits in it the
views of his students who actually attended my lecture. If someone
would forward this to the law school faculty in particular, I would
greatly appreciate that.
Here is my
own most recent publication on this event.
It links to most of the material on this thread, including the Diversity
Task Force's "statement" and my response to it.
12/18/08 2pm
Dear Prof.
Martin:
Thanks for
your message that appears below. I didn't realize that I had this
option.
As a matter
of fact, I do have a "bias-related incident" to report. It pertains
to Mr. Quant, and to the entire Diversity Task Force of which he
is a part. In my view, they are all guilty of engaging in "bias"
against me. See here
and here.
Can you please
advise me as to how I can bring formal charges of bias against them?
What campus mechanisms are there for victims of bias such as me?
Surely, I cannot report this incident to Mr. Quant himself, as he
would then be a judge in his own case.
Wait, I just
realized that you, too, are a member of this Task Force. Thus, you,
too, would be precluded from judging my bias complaint. But, as
an expert in these matters, you could still advise me as to how
to proceed. What mechanisms are there in place to come to the rescue
of victims of bias perpetrated by the very people in charge of ferreting
out, and, presumably, punishing, "bias"?
Would someone
who is receiving this message please forward it to the law school
faculty. Surely, someone on that faculty could advise me as to how
to bring a charge of bias against the defendants in this case.
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
From: lmartin@loyno.edu
[mailto:lmartin@loyno.edu]
Sent: Wed 12/17/2008 3:10 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Out of Office
Professor Martin
will be out of the office until early February. Should you have
a bias-related incident, please report it to Ted Quant, Director
of Loyola's Twomey Center for Peace through Justice. Quant@loyno.edu.
Phone (504) 861-5831.
II. Second,
is it not anomalous of me to bring a charge of bias, racism, sexism,
anti Catholicism and anti Semitism against you, personally, and
the Task Force, in general, when you are precisely the people in
charge of publicizing, condemning and rooting out such acts in our
community? Well, yes, I suppose it is. But, such a charge is not
without precedent. After all, policemen are commonly thought to
have the function of protecting society against crime; yet, although
happily rarely, there are policemen who have been found guilty of
the selfsame criminal behavior they are sworn to end. Similarly,
the presumed goal of judges is to promote justice. And, yet, there
are indeed cases where judges, themselves, have been imprisoned,
because they have suborned justice.
As well, it
is the contention of some political philosophers (not me, as it
happens) that racism, sexism, anti Catholicism and anti Semitism
and other such perspectives are endemic in our society. Well, if
these outlooks are that widespread, this present claim of mine should
not be seen as much of an anomaly as would otherwise be the case.
They can infect those, too, who are supposed to oppose them.
III. Third,
I am no lawyer, but I am acquainted with at least one element of
law: it is improper for a judge, such as ordinarily you would be
in these matters, to take on that role in a case where you are also
the defendant, such as the case I am now bringing against you and
your colleagues on the Task Force. Thus, I hereby ask you to recuse
yourself in this matter.
Who should
take your place in this trial? Whatever the mechanisms already in
place to deal with the situation would be satisfactory to me. If
this awkwardness has not been anticipated, then I would accept as
my judge on these matters the university president, provost, any
of the associate provosts, any dean or associate dean, except, of
course, for Dean Anthony Decuir, who would also have to recuse himself.
IV. Fourth,
I have been accused of racism and sexism. The burden
of proof rests with those who make this hysterical allegation;
until and less they do, it is not required of me, the accused, to
refute it.
However, I
want to clarify the record. I have a paper trail incompatible with
these accusations. Here is an article of mine published in January,
1993, long before the present unpleasantness began, in support of
black leader Malcolm
X. And here is a more recent op ed (published on 5/16/08, about
six months before the brou ha ha that erupted in Baltimore) supporting
the candidacy of Barack Obama, versus his two main competitors at
the time, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Then, too, I have written
on several occasions in favor of reparations to present day
black people, in compensation for past slavery; see on this here,
here
and here:
These are hardly
positions associated with racism. Further, among my many co authors,
several of my writing partners are black scholars. Here,
here
and here are some of the
publications we have co authored.
You will note
that this evidence of my non racism is of long duration. I have
published in favor of slavery reparations to black people in 1999-2000,
2002 and again in 2007. My explicit support for black leaders (Malcolm,
Obama) stretches from 1993 to 2008. This bespeaks a long term dedication
to this cause. My co authorships with black scholars stretch from
1981 to 2007. Thus, I am no Johnny-come-lately to the non or anti
racist banner.
My record on
sexism is equally clear. I would estimate that I have in excess
of several dozen female co authors, going back to the 1990s. I can
supply a bibliography of these publications if needed. At this point,
let me mention only one citation: here is a publication that began
as a term paper by one of my black female students. Although
I do not agree with a word of it, indeed, she explicitly criticizes
my views in her paper, I took great pains to help her get it
published.
V. Fifth,
I want to give some background as to my teaching style. If I had
to summarize it briefly, it is inspired by John Stuart Mill’s "On
Liberty," where he discusses the pedagogical benefits of students
hearing all sides of any dispute. That is precisely the way
I run my courses. For example, when I teach environmental economics,
I try to instill in my students four different viewpoints. I even
place them on the blackboard like this:
Radical left;
moderate left; moderate right, radical right
(Radical left
indicates those who take a position similar to David Suzuki or Paul
Ehrlich; moderate left is roughly the Al Gore position; moderate
right portrays the University of Chicago watered down free enterprise
viewpoint – Julian Simon might be a good exemplar of this; and radical
right, my own Austro libertarian views).
Then, I make
a list of topics to be discussed, and place them down the first
column of the blackboard, hence:
- Species
extinction
- Overpopulation
- Forests
- Water
- Recycling
- Weather
- Pollution
Note, that
with four columns and seven rows (I usually cover about 15 topics
in my classes) this creates a matrix of 28 boxes. I tell my students
that a great part of the term’s work will be to fill in this checker
board: they will learn the views of all four of the perspectives
regarding all the topics to be discussed. As evidence for this pedagogical
style, I offer my seven years’ worth of syllabi, which are on record
at the College of Business. (If a student writes a term paper from
a perspective with which I disagree, I give it a high mark if I
think it is a good example of that orientation.)
After my
lecture in Baltimore, during the question period, I was asked why
there is a black – white earnings gap. As most economists would,
I answered that this was a function, mainly, of productivity differentials.
The questioner persisted, wondering why these, in turn, existed.
In response I said there are two main theories that purport to explain
this. The first, I went on to say, was that lower black productivity
could be traced back to slavery, to Jim Crow legislation, to poorer
inner city schooling, diet, etc. The second was IQ differentials.
I feel it is my duty as a professor, when confronted with
student questions, to lay out all the relevant issues. In
my view, a student who has never so much as even heard of
this IQ explanation is at a decided intellectual disadvantage, compared
to those who have. I go further: such a student has been cheated.
Now, even mentioning IQ in the typical university setting (apart
from debunking the entire concept) is, for many, akin to shouting
out the F word in the drawing room. Indeed, it is simply not done
in "polite" society, in their view. I beg to differ.
Jesus claimed
to be "the Truth" and that part of "putting on the full armor
of God is to "gird your loins with Truth".
The pursuit of Truth is an integral and recurrent commandment to
the faithful Christian. Well, it is true that some scholars
explain productivity differentials in terms of IQ. This is the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. To evade this, to hide
this from students, constitutes moral cowardice. I search in vain
for biblical or Jesuitical writing to the effect that the truth
must be suppressed if it brings about hurt feelings. Perhaps I will
be corrected on this by those with greater theological credentials
than I. It is intellectual malpractice to act as if the Herrnstein-Murray
book, The
Bell Curve, simply does not exist. It is a sin against the
truth. I will never be part of any such thing.
Rather, I take
my stance with John Stuart Mill. It is as if he presciently wrote,
in On Liberty, about
this very sort of thing:
"… the
opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly
be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth;
but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the
question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the
means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they
are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty
is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of
discussion is an assumption of infallibility."
Mill continues
(emphasis added):
"But when
we turn to subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion,
politics, social relations, and the business of life, three-fourths
of the arguments for every disputed opinion consist in dispelling
the appearances which favour some opinion different from it. The
greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that
he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with
still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised
as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all
who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows
only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons
may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But
if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side;
if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground
for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would
be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that,
he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of
the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it
enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his
own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what
they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to
the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind.
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them;
who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He
must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must
feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the
subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really
possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes
that difficulty."
With these
preliminaries out of the way, I now elaborate upon my indictment
against you and the Task Force.
First, consider
your own letter of to the Times Picayune. It reads
as follows:
White supremacy
theory proved fatal and false
Wednesday,
December 03, 2008
Re: "A tough
sell in the marketplace of ideas," Other Opinions, Nov. 25.
Loyola University
professor Walter Block asserts that black people 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 black people have lower IQs than
white people.
Apparently
the havoc wrought by 500 years of pseudoscientific "proofs" of white
supremacy is not sufficiently instructive. Millions of native peoples
were slaughtered and 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 demanding the repeal of civil right laws to allow discrimination
against those Block deems unproductive? This is the logic and legacy
of such flawed analysis.
Ted Quant
Director
Twomey Center
Loyola University
New Orleans
Let me address
this letter under the following five headings: bias, racism, sexism,
anti Catholicism, anti Semitism.
1. bias. You
place in quotation marks the words "average" and "leading corporations."
The context makes it plain that you are directly quoting me. Yet,
I challenge you to find such words in any of my publications with
that precise meaning attached. Your letter is almost a classic case
of guilt by association. Some supporters of forced eugenics used
IQ to buttress their case. Therefore, anyone who utilizes this IQ
measure is guilty of advocating a similar rights violation. Yes,
the Nazis are properly associated with this sort of vicious thinking.
But Hitler was also an advocate of health foods, and environmental
concerns. Are we to condemn all those with these interests? Yes,
if we believe in guilt by association.
As it happens,
the Nazis were not the only supporters of eugenic measures. Far
from it. Others who held these views include:
H.
G. Wells, Woodrow
Wilson, Theodore
Roosevelt, Emile
Zola, George
Bernard Shaw, John
Maynard Keynes, William
Keith Kellogg, Margaret
Sanger, Winston
Churchill, and Sidney
Webb; feminists
Emily Murphy,
Louise McKinney
and Nellie McClung.
Here is yet another
listing of famous people who supported this initiative: Charles
Darwin, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, Samuel Butler, Plato, Alexander
Graham Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Theodore Roosevelt, John H. Kellogg,
Charles Davenport, Lewis Terman. Are we to denounce all those who
are guilty of merely citing any of these people? Yes, if
we believe in guilt by association. Yes, if you apply the same logic
to all of them as you have applied to me. Do you indeed revile,
as you do me, anyone who ever quoted any of these supporters of
eugenics? Of course not. Hence, your bias is demonstrated.
President elect
Obama has called
for people to "disagree without being disagreeable." I
have long tried to follow this advice, all throughout my intellectual
career. Can you honestly say that you have disagreed with me without
being disagreeable?
2. racism.
It is surely racist to accuse a well documented supporter of black
leaders, and of a black cause (reparations for slavery), and a co
author with several black scholars, of cooperation with, or support
for, the slaughter of millions of Africans, merely for attempting
to shed light on why it is that there is a wage gap between whites
and blacks. If this is not an attempt to "suppress by authority,"
in Mill’s words, then nothing is.
3. sexism.
It is sexist to accuse me of saying this: "women are less productive
than white men because women have only ‘average’ intelligence needed
for motherhood but not for ‘leading corporations," when I did
not say this. Indeed, when I was careful not to say this.
4. anti Catholicism.
I am already on record in documenting your anti Catholicism here,
on grounds of violating paragraph 22 of the Spiritual Exercises
of Saint Ignatius, which are the spiritual foundation of Jesuit
life. I now add to this indictment the charge that your letter runs
contrary to Matthew
18:15-17. This passage lays out a clear process for resolving
disputes:
A. Meet privately
and lay out your grievance in private. If there is a meeting of
the minds, the dispute is over and the grievance healed.
B. If
that does not work, then (I would add only then) bring two
or three neutral parties and lay out your case again before people
whose judgment and fairness you both accept; e.g. elders of the
church. If this works, the dispute is over and the grievance healed.
C. If
that does not work, then (I would again add only then) bring
your grievance to the whole congregation (make the grievance public).
You acted in
a manner contrary to this biblical doctrine by immediately moving
to step C, completely by-passing A and B.
5. anti Semitism.
I am Jewish. You trashed me in this very public letter in a very
humiliating manner. My claim is that you would have not done so
were I not Jewish (I have as much evidence in support of this accusation
as you had in defense of your claim that I am a racist; namely,
none. But, I think it is salutary for you to be victimized by this
sort of unwarranted outburst from time to time). However, I make
this charge under correction. If you can show that you have treated
at least one non Jew in the vicious way you have dealt with me,
I will withdraw this charge.
For my
further criticism of this Times Picayune letter of yours,
see here
and here.
Let us now
consider the "statement" of the Affirmative Action Diversity
Task Force, Loyola University New Orleans, which I reprint here,
typographical errors included:
From: raphael@loyno.edu
Subject: Affirmative Action Diversity Tast Force Statement
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
As before,
I will deal with this document under the following five headings:
bias, racism, sexism, anti Catholicism, anti Semitism.
1. bias. This
"statement" incorporates very serious charges. Yet, instead
of making these accusations on the basis of what I had done, you
based it on what a journalist wrote about a speech I gave, and an
interview he did with me. If this does not bespeak "bias"
I do not know what does. The fact that you would send out an official
document, to the entire Loyola community, undated, and with
typographical errors, is insulting. I take it that this emanates
from a bias against me (I have no evidence to support this; I just
wanted you too see how it felt to have unwarranted accusations made
against you.) It is also biased to ignore a series of nine
questions previously put to you, in response to this "statement."
2. racism.
You never quite come out and directly accuse me of racism. Instead,
you meander around this charge with verbiage such as "reductionist"
(I still don’t know what this means; I have asked
you about it, but I have not been vouchsafed any answer) "flawed
remarks" (I know full well what this means). I regard it as
racist to accuse another person of racism, particularly one with
my paper trail of anti racist publications, on the basis of no evidence
whatsoever.
 3.
sexism. I maintain that it is sexist to take the position, if only
by innuendo, that I do not favor "instilling in every one
of our students a desire to pursue excellence and to be women and
men in solidarity with others." This implies I short-change
our female students. Not so; not even close. Here is a bit of evidence
on that score. I am inordinately proud that in my seven years at
Loyola, 21 of the essays that started out as term papers for my
courses have ended up, with my help, as publications in refereed
journals. Not bad for undergraduate students. I list them here.
Of these 21, fully 15 have been authored by women; only 7 have men
students as authors (there is an over count by one since one of
the papers was co authored by a male and a female student). But,
let me engage in some full disclosure: there are also another 6
articles that have been accepted for publication; 5 of these are
authored by male students. The bottom line here is, at least based
on this partial record, that I do indeed try my best to "instill…
in every one of our students a desire to pursue excellence
and to be women and men in solidarity with others."
4. anti Catholicism.
You say you hold to the Jesuit ideal of rigorous intellectual examination.
Your statement is simply not compatible with that high ideal. And,
what about the Jesuit ideal of paragraph 22 of the Spiritual Exercises
of Saint Ignatius? What about Matthew 18:15-17? Is this incompatible
with Jesuit ideals?
 Further,
there is much in Paul’s letters to the various churches (Ephesus,
Corinth, Rome, etc.) and pastors (Timothy, Titus, Philemon, etc.)
on the importance of the Truth, standing firm in the Truth, and
being wise enough to give clear cogent answers when questioned about
your beliefs and why you hold them.
Paul was speaking
of the salvation of Christ, but the principles (seek the Truth,
know the Truth, study and understand the Truth so well that you
can articulate your beliefs to any who ask) seem applicable to any
endeavor where the goal is to persuade (not coerce) another person
to your point of view. (I owe these theological insights to a theologian
who wishes to remain anonymous.)
5. anti Semitism.
I make the same charge, here, against the Task Force that I made
with regard to the published letter of Mr. Ted Quant. I am Jewish;
this letter attacks me. Therefore, it is an attack on all Jews.
Ergo, here is a case of anti Semitism. Why should I show evidence
in support of this charge? No, I content myself with making this
claim which, for all I know might be true, and charge you
with the responsibility of proving that it is false. Hint:
one way to demonstrate this is to show a case where the Task Force
dealt so unfairly with a non Jew. Just give me one such example,
and I will withdraw this part of the indictment.
 Here
is a bit of friendly advice, in closing. Next time, pick your target
for unwarranted ill-treatment more carefully. Do not choose a professor
who is on sabbatical. He has more time than usual to respond to
your unjust allegations. Better to abuse a faculty member with a
full teaching load. Even more efficacious, avoid those of us with
tenure; we are even more free to speak our minds. Yes, focus on
an untenured assistant professor with a full teaching load, who
really wants to keep his job. Go for the low lying fruit first,
no? Let Rev. Martin
Niemoller be your guide. He said "In Germany they first
came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they
came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak
up." So, first come for assistant professors. Then, associates.
Then, full professors. Leave alone, until last, those of us with
named endowed chairs, who have recently won the Dux Academicus,
and have been singled out, at both the college and university level,
for research and publishing awards. Academics of this sort may well
have encouraged female student publications and for many years published
material on their own that undermines your charges. That just makes
you look inept. Why put yourselves through the rigors of reading
all that they have published? (Of course, if you find a "smoking
gun," all bets are off; but, remember, such research takes
time). Better to try to bully faculty members with a shorter
paper trail.
December
23, 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
|
