|
How
I Offended the Diversitarians
Loyola University
New Orleans Diversity Task force: Ted
Quant (Twomey Center), Lydia
Voigt (Sociology), Wing Fok
(Management), Lisa Martin
(Mass Communication), Alvaro
Alcazar (Twomey Center), James
Hobbs (University Library), Kurt
Bindewald (University Ministry), Artemis
Preeshl (Theater Arts and Dance), Karen
Reichard (Women’s Resource Center), Anthony
Decuir (Music and Fine Arts)
Open Letter
to the Diversity Task Force:
On November
6, 2008, in Baltimore, MD, at Loyola College Maryland, I gave a
speech called "Social Justice: A Critique." In it, I discussed
the male-female wage gap and the glass ceiling.
On November
26, 2008, James Gill wrote
an article
in the New Orleans Times Picayune on that talk.
On the basis
of that newspaper column, not on the basis of my actual talk (which
none of you members of the Diversity Task Force attended), your
Diversity Task Force wrote this highly critical report
about me.
I thought this
was most unfair.
In order to
attempt to address this injustice, on March 25, 2009 I gave a speech
at Loyola University New Orleans on this same topic.
I invited all of you members of the Diversity Task Force to attend
this lecture. Only Mr. Ted Quandt, of your committee, took me up
on this invitation. I don’t blame those of you who didn’t attend
for your absence. There are always many important competing claims
on our time, including meetings that take place at our University
on any given weeknight during the school year.
But I will
feel highly aggrieved if, at this late date, you still refuse to
view this tape. I don’t guarantee that this talk of mine on March
25, 2009 was identical to the one I gave earlier, on November 6,
2008 in Baltimore. I don’t read my speeches; instead, I speak extemporaneously,
from notes. But, I did indeed use the same exact notes, so the two
presentations are very similar (as was this even earlier
version,
given in Auburn AL at the Mises University in August, 2006). It
would have been very easy for you to have viewed this 2006 tape
before writing your scandalous report. Had you but contacted me
before writing it, I certainly would have referred you to this tape.
However, not only did you not even bother to discuss this matter
with me, but, evidently, you could not even be bothered to google
my name in conjunction with this subject.
So, I ask you,
I plead with you, I beg you, in the name of justice (not "social
justice"; rather, plain old justice) to view the tape of the
talk I gave on March 25, 2009.
On March 26,
2009, the day after my lecture, I wrote this letter to Mr. Quandt:
From:
Walter Block
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:59 AM
To: quant@loyno.edu
Subject: questions
Dear Mr. Quant:
Thank you very,
very much for attending my lecture last night. Not only did you
attend, but you had the grace to ask questions, make important points,
which, I regard as the beginnings of a dialogue between us. I would
like to have lunch with you one of these days, so as to continue
our dialogue.
In the meantime,
please allow me to pose several questions to you. I think they require
yes or no answers, but, that is up to you, of course. So, here goes.
On the basis of my lecture last night
- do you
regard me as a sexist?
- do you
regard me as a racist?
- do you
think I marginalize my black and female students? (In case you
didn’t get the testimonial letters from my students that were
given out last night, I take the liberty of attaching them, now.)
- had you
seen my lecture before the Diversity Task Force Report on me,
would you have signed it? If not,
- do you,
in retrospect, now regret signing, that letter? If so
- will you
publicly renounce your signature on that letter, and thus disassociate
yourself from it?
I regard you
as a fair man. We may disagree on issues of economics, politics,
etc., but that is another matter. In my view, writing that report
on the basis of hearsay, not allowing me a chance to testify before
your committee, was improper. I would very much appreciate it if
you renounce your support of the Diversity Task Force Report on
me.
Best regards,
Walter
Unhappily,
Mr. Quandt has not yet seen fit, as of today, April 17, 2009, to
respond to what I regard as a polite letter; a very polite letter,
given the circumstances.
I am now asking
the members of the Diversity Task Force, those whose names appear
on this "Report," to view the tape and answer the questions
I put to Mr. Quandt. If on the basis of this viewing, you no longer
view me as guilty of the charges you launched at me in your "Report"
then I would ask that you publicly (i.e., to the same audience to
whom the "Report" was disseminated) renounce this "Report,"
and apologize for it. On the other hand, you now have enough "rope"
with which to "hang" me if you still feel I am guilty
of marginalizing my black and female students, etc. But, in this
case, I feel it is your duty to dot your I’s and cross your T’s.
To wit, quote the specific statements of mine you feel merit this
condemnation. That is, condemn me out of my own mouth, and not on
the basis of a newspaper column written about me by someone else.
I will not
rest until justice is done on this matter. A basic element of justice
is that people should be condemned, only, for their own actions,
not for reports on them written by others. You hold a quasi-judicial
role in our great university. If you are to be worthy of this honor
bestowed upon you, in my opinion you are obligated to treat me,
and all others under your jurisdiction, with fairness. So far, you
have not lived up to this responsibility. I now offer you another
chance to make good on your previous omissions and commissions.
Please do take me up on this offer.
I await your
response to this letter. But, I am not holding my breath. I have
written to you before, on numerous occasions, and not once have
you seen fit to reply to me. That does not seem to be very collegial.
I assure you, that were the shoe on the other foot, I would have
had the courtesy to at least respond to your calls for justice.
Yours truly,
Walter Block
From:
Walter Block
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:38 AM
To: 'rwhite@loyno.edu'
Subject: complaint
3/22/09
Dr. Roger White
Vice Provost
Loyola University New Orleans
Dear Dr. White:
Please consider
this letter as a formal complaint of mine against 1. the Diversity
Task Force, and 2. Provost Ed Kvet, who is responsible for not allowing
my reply to this Task Force to be seen by the same audience as saw
that report.
1. The Diversity
Task Force (here
is their report)
 If
any one private individual or informal group of such people had
said that I do not "instill… in every one of our students a
desire to pursue excellence and to be women and men in solidarity
with others" and that I exclude and "marginalize women
and African Americans," that I am "dangerous, fueling
those with prejudices to confirm their biased views," and that
I do not "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," I would regard such criticisms
as well within the bounds of civil discourse and free speech. I
would have no trouble whatsoever with such people saying such things,
although, of course, I would disagree vehemently with their opinions.
I would certainly not accuse such people of creating a hostile environment
for me. However, it was decidedly not one private individual
or informal group of such people who made these remarks. Rather,
it was a duly constituted committee of Loyola University New Orleans;
to wit, the Diversity Task Force. It is my claim that this is a
quasi-judicial committee; one, presumably, empowered to ferret out
violations of the principles to which members of the community of
Loyola University New Orleans are supposed to adhere. I have been
found guilty by this quasi-judicial committee. More. They held no
hearings, at least none at which I was invited to testify, on the
basis of which they determined upon a verdict of guilty. This seems
most unfair.
As a result
of that report, and its wide circulation, to the entire Loyola community,
my reputation has been besmirched. Who knows how many students there
are who will avoid my classes; who knows how many faculty members
who will advise students to this end. Who knows how many members
of the faculty there are who will turn their backs to me when I
approach; who will not sit at the same table with me at our faculty
lounge, or student dining room. One member of our academic community
is already, publicly, on record as refusing to dine with a job candidate
because I was also included in this dinner gathering. (WB, 4/16/09:
I no longer regard this last statement as true; it was told to me
by a person I no longer regard as a reliable source; I am leaving
in this statement, though, so as to not change the record.)
 Worse,
a duly constituted member of that Diversity Task Force committee,
one Professor Wing Fok, told
me that I am guilty until proven innocent. That is, until I
prove myself innocent. This turns on its head centuries of the jurisprudence
of America and other civilized countries.
What, specifically,
about the actions of the Diversity Task Force, violates my rights
as indicated in our faculty handbook? There are several instances:
Page 1–18 reads
as follows: "‘Hostile work or learning environment,’ where
the harassment creates an offensive and unpleasant working or learning
environment." I have been accused, in effect, of being a sexist.
This, in my view, constitutes sexual harassment. Due to the widely
disseminated report of the Diversity Task Force, "an offensive
and unpleasant working or learning environment" (in the words
of the handbook) has been created for me.
Page 8–1 of
the handbook mentions the following: "Each faculty member has
the right of free inquiry and exchange of ideas in teaching and
scholarly pursuits. Each faculty member has the right to present
subject matter in the manner he or she deems most suitable, as well
as the right to present controversial material relevant to a course
of instruction." I feel that my right of free inquiry has been
abridged by this unjust, undocumented and unfair finding of the
Diversity Task Force that I am both a racist and a sexist.
Page 8–3 mentions
"C. Academic Freedom." I feel that my academic freedom
has been impinged upon, but having a judicial committee pronounce
a verdict of "guilty" upon me, without holding a trial,
without adducing any evidence whatsoever that I am guilty of racism
or sexism.
In my view,
members of our academic community are bound not only by our handbook.
We are, after all, inter alia, a Jesuit university. Thus,
we are obligated to act in accord, also, with Jesuit prescriptions.
The Spiritual
Exercises of Saint Ignatius are the spiritual foundation of Jesuit
life. Paragraph 22 of the Exercises is a beautiful passage that
says the following:
"That both the giver and the maker of the Spiritual Exercises may
be of greater help and benefit to each other, it should be presupposed
that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation
on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. Further, if
one cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other
means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the
person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out
every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement
in a good way, it may be saved."
Have the members
of the Diversity Task Force acted in accordance with this Ignatian
prescription? To ask this question is to answer it: they have not.
They never approached me to discern if the newspaper column on the
basis of which they wrote their report was accurate. Taking the
position that the burden of proof lay with me to demonstrate my
innocence (a manifest injustice), they did not have the decency
to invite me to their meeting to demonstrate this. In this and every
other way possible, they acted in a manner incompatible with the
Jesuit principles which supposedly underlie our behavior at Loyola
University.
2. I was
not allowed to reply
 The
Diversity Task Force report was circulated to the entire academic
community (LoyMail Daily Campus
E-Mail Digest; Information Technology.) When I tried to reply,
I was told by Michael Klein, the person in charge of vetting this
website that, since the Diversity Task Force was a duly constituted
committee of Loyola New Orleans, they had a right to utilize this
venue; since I was "only" an individual, I had no such
right. I appealed this decision all the way up to Provost Ed Kvet.
He, too, supported the decision to not allow me access to this website.
I feel this is most unfair. True, I was able to circulate my response
to people, but not to all those who had seen the Task
Force Report. What, then, is the response likely to be of those
who viewed the Task Force Report, but were unable to see my response.
For many – it is only human nature – the response is likely to be
"Where there is smoke, there must be fire. Here is a report,
highly critical of Prof. Block, written by a duly constituted committee
of Loyola University New Orleans. Block has not responded to it.
There must be some truth to it, otherwise the Task Force
would not have written its report, and, Block would have at least
tried to refute it."
3. Remedies.
- I would
like to have the opportunity to post a reply to the Diversity
Task Force on the same website on which they slandered me. That
is, I am seeking an over turning of Provost Kvet’s decision to
not allow me access to this communications forum. I would like
a public apology from Provost Kvet for not allowing me to respond
to the Diversity Task Force.
- I would
like the opportunity to confront my accusers, the Diversity Task
Force, in a public hearing, adjudicated by an impartial board,
committee or individual.
- I would
like a public apology from each of the members of the Diversity
Task Force for writing and signing that "Report" about
me. I would like those who refused to make this apology to be
removed from that committee; I would like a public announcement
to be made that these people are being removed from that committee.
April
20, 2009
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 Labor
Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book
is The
Privatization of Roads and Highways.
Copyright
© 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Walter
Block Archives
|
