Block
vs. Hendry on Social Justice at Loyola University
DIGG THIS
Introduction
I presently
teach at a Jesuit University, Loyola University New Orleans, and
have done so since 2001. Previously, I taught at another Jesuit
University, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA, from
1991 to 1997. This, to be sure, does not make me an expert in the
Jesuit Order and its contributions to education, although, perhaps,
because of these experiences I am more knowledgeable about these
matters than most non-members of the Order and most non-Catholics.
Let me say,
then, in this regard, that while there are some exceptions, the
political economic philosophy of most modern Jesuits is left-liberal,
or communitarian. They commonly see their perspective as a "third
way," neither advocating the capitalism supposedly of the right,
nor the socialism of the left.
What of the
exceptions? Well, to my knowledge in the modern era there is Fr.
James Sadowsky, S.J., a philosophy professor emeritus at Fordham
University in the Bronx, and Fr. James Schall, S.J. a professor
of Political Science and Government at Georgetown University in
Washington, D.C. Another member of this order who does not fit comfortably
with the left-liberal, communitarian label is Fr. Kevin Wildes,
S.J., president of my own university, Loyola University New Orleans.
(If anyone knows of other such examples, I would dearly love to
hear of them.) For a very nuanced discussion of the present topic
by this author, see this.
Historically,
many the early members of the Jesuits, founded in 1540, were members
of the School of Salamanca. Paradoxically given what came later,
this meant they were libertarians, and actual precursors of the
Austrian School of economics. For them, for example, the just price
was the market price, the just wage was the market wage, and the
just rate of interest was the market rate of interest (see on this
the books by Tom
Woods and Alejandro
Chafuen). Given the vast differences between the early and modern
Jesuits, one might go so far as to say that this Order has been
hijacked to a great degree by Liberation Theologians (these are
scholars who combine the non-atheistic elements of Marxism with
Catholicism), left liberals, communitarians, and other opponents
of laissez faire capitalism, private property rights and economic
freedom.
If this is
an accurate way to characterize matters, then the chief high-jacker,
at least at Loyola University New Orleans, has been Si Hendry, S.J.,
who was in residence from 2002 to 2005. Although on a personally
friendly basis (he and I very much agree in our criticism of U.S.
foreign policy) Father Hendry and I have tangled, often, on matters
of economics, egalitarianism, the welfare state, and social justice,
the subject of the confrontation between us that follows.
It all began
with my unhappiness that Loyola University New Orleans publicly
characterizes itself as "social justice university." See
on this here, here,
here, here,
here,
here,
and here.
Why, our bookstore even sells a sweatshirt claiming that Loyola
University New Orleans is "social justice university."
I wear mine every once in a while just for the fun of it.
Part I by
Walter Block
There are two
ways to define "Social Justice."
First, this
concept may be defined substantively. It is typically associated
with left-wing or socialist analyses, policies and prescriptions.
-
For example,
poverty is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to
heavily regulate markets or ban them outright.
-
Racism
and sexism account for the relative plight of racial minorities
and women; laws should be passed prohibiting their exercise.
-
Greater
reliance on government is required as the solution of all sorts
of social problems.
-
The planet
is in great danger from environmental despoliation, due to an
unjustified reliance on private property rights. Taxes are too
low; they should be raised.
-
Charity
is an insult to the poor, who must obtain more revenues by right,
not condescension.
-
Diversity
is the sine qua non of the fair society. Discrimination is one
of the greatest evils to have ever beset mankind. Use of terminology
such as "mankind" is sexist, and constitutes hate speech.
Secondly, social
justice may be seen not as a particular viewpoint on such issues,
but rather as a concern with studying them with no preconceived
notions.
In this perspective,
no particular stance is taken on issues of poverty, capitalism,
socialism, discrimination, government regulation of the economy,
free enterprise, environmentalism, taxation, charity, diversity,
etc.
Rather, the
only claim is that such topics are important for a liberal arts
education, and that any institution of higher learning that ignores
them does so at peril to its own mission.
So that we
may be crystal clear on this distinction, a social justice advocate
of the first variety might claim that businesses are improper, while
one who pursued this undertaking in the second sense would content
himself by merely asserting that the status of business is an important
one to study.
Should Loyola
dedicate itself to the promotion of social justice? It would be
a disaster to do so in the first sense of this term, and it is unnecessary
in the second. Let us consider each option in turn.
Should Loyola
demand of its faculty that they support social justice in the substantive
left-wing sense, it would in one fell swoop lose all academic credibility.
For it would in effect be demanding that its professors espouse
socialism.
But this is
totally incompatible with academic freedom: the right to pursue
knowledge with an open mind, and to come to conclusions based on
research, empirical evidence, logic, etc., instead of working with
blinders, being obligated to arrive only at one point of view on
all such issues.
This would
mean, for example, in economics, the area with which I am most familiar,
to be constrained to conclude that the minimum wage law is the last
best hope for the unskilled, and that continually raising it is
both just and expeditious; that free trade is pernicious and exploitative.
It is more
than passing curious that those in the university community who
are most heavily addicted to diversity cannot tolerate it when it
comes to divergence of opinions, conclusions, public policy prescriptions,
etc.
What about
promoting social justice in the second sense; not to enforce conclusions
on researchers but merely to urge that questions of this sort be
studied?
This is either
misguided, or unnecessary. It is misguided in disciplines such as
mathematics, physics, chemistry, music, accounting, statistics,
etc., since these callings do not typically address issues related
to social justice.
There is no
"just" or "unjust" way to deal with a "T" account, a quadratic equation
or an econometric regression; there are only correct and incorrect
ways to go about these enterprises.
To ask, let
alone to demand, that professors in these fields concern themselves
with poverty, economic development, wage gaps or air pollution is
to take them far out of their areas of expertise.
It is just
as silly as asking a philosopher to teach music, or vice versa.
And it is totally
unnecessary, particularly in the social sciences but also in the
humanities. For if members of these disciplines are not already
conducting studies on issues germane to social justice (and, of
course, to other things as well) then they are simply derelict in
their duty.
If historians,
sociologists, anthropologists, economists, philosophers are ignoring
poverty, unemployment, war, environmentalism, etc., no exhortations
to the contrary are likely to improve matters.
Loyola should
cease and desist forthwith from labeling itself a "Social Justice
University," and from promoting all extant programs to this end.
It is unseemly
to foist upon its faculty and students any one point of view on
these highly contentious issues.
It would be
just as improper to do so from a free enterprise, limited government
private property rights perspective as it is from its present stance
in the opposite direction.
Part II
by Fr. Si Hendry, S.J.
In his … (Part
I) column, Dr. Walter Block distorted the idea of justice. He described
two ways of defining justice, and he never actually defined it.
First he associated
justice with caricatures of specific policies of a political economic
agenda, which he rejected. Then he identified justice with the study
and discussion of various issues. He even threw in a gratuitous,
unsubstantiated, and generalized accusation about how people who
favor diversity do not respect opinions other than their own.
Dr. Block defined
justice with caricatures and distortions, attempted to discredit
those who support it, and then, by rejecting the parodies he created,
argued to forego giving a value to justice in the university. This
process says nothing about actual justice.
Using the same
method, I could caricature economics substantively as "the mechanism
by which the rich create wealth by taking advantage of the poor,"
or procedurally as "the process of deciding how to use scarce resources
to meet one's needs."
Then, rejecting
the first as immoral and the second as superfluous (because everyone
already does this when they implement decisions to pursue a goal),
I could argue for the elimination of the economics department. I
would never do that seriously, but I mention it to provide an alternative
example of Dr. Block's fallacious reasoning.
I expect more
from a professor who teaches Catholic Social Thought. The term "social
justice" came into the parlance of Catholic social thought with
Pope Pius XI's 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno. He defined social
justice in terms of the common good, arguing that great disparities
in the distribution of wealth and the exclusion of some from access
to the benefits of economic and social developments threatened the
common good and, therefore, violated social justice.
The basis of
his approach was neither advocacy for a specific political agenda
nor a desire for study and discussion with no preconceptions, but
a concern for the plight of the poor and the well-being of society.
Catholic social
thought has used the ideas of social justice and the common good
to critique economics and government, capitalism and socialism.
Rather than being an ideology, a system, or a set of policies in
itself, the concept of social justice is a value framework that
provides a basis for evaluating and critiquing ideologies, systems
and policies.
I suggest that
in discussing justice, Dr. Block use accurate definitions and reasoned
argument rather than caricatures, distortions, and faulty logic.
Part III
by Walter Block: Reply to Fr. Hendry, S.J.
In part I,
I published an op ed in the Maroon, the student newspaper,
entitled "Social justice hinders curriculum." In it I
argued that our attempt to market Loyola University New Orleans
as "Social Justice University" on sweat shirts and the
like was highly problematic. If social justice were defined substantively
as adherence to a certain set of political economic positions, this
promotion was wrong headed in that it attempted to impose a uniformity
of belief on issues of economic issues such as poverty, unemployment,
welfare, etc. It constituted a denial of academic freedom on our
community and imposed homogeneity on us, whereas heterogeneity,
or diversity of opinion, is what earmarks great institutions of
higher learning. If defined non-substantively, as, merely, interest
in issues of this sort but adherence to no particular perspective
on them, it is irrelevant to fields such as chemistry, mathematics,
etc., and unnecessary for the humanities and social sciences, which
would be derelict in their duty if ignored.
In part II,
The Rev. Si Hendry, S.J., Director of our campus Jesuit Center,
wrote a rejoinder entitled "Block distorts social justice."
In it he charges me with failure to define terms, creating caricatures
and then attacking them, distortion, opposing justice, faulty logic
and fallacious reasoning; I shall resist replying in the same name-calling
vein.
He attempts
to undermine my position by utilizing a technique in logic called
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque or the "you
too" fallacy. The essence of this is an attempt to refute
an argument by showing it to be inconsistent with either the beliefs
or actions of its proponent. For example, Joe Blow opposes killing
animals, but eats roast beef and wears a leather jacket. The difficulty
with this procedure is that it can at best expose hypocrisy but
cannot show fallacy. That is, the animal rights position may still
be correct, even though Joe does not (fully) adhere to it.
What is Fr.
Hendry’s version of this ploy? He states as a "substantive
… caricature" that economics is "‘the mechanism by which
the rich create wealth by taking advantage of the poor,’ or procedurally
as ‘the process of deciding how to use scarce resources to meet
one’s needs.’" He concludes: "Then, rejecting the first
as immoral and the second as superfluous (everyone already does
this …) I could argue for the elimination of the economics department."
Why does this
fail? First, because it has nothing to do with the unfairness and
impropriety of imposing social justice, unless so broadly
defined as to be virtually meaningless, on an entire university
community. At best it can show that we ought to eliminate
the economics department. In other words, it does not even begin
to "lay a glove" on my original argument that the social
justice marketing maneuver is ill-conceived.
Secondly, it
does not succeed because of disanalogy. There are several here.
For one thing, in Fr. Hendry’s view, the correct rendition of social
justice must be couched in terms of the common good, which is undermined
by great disparities of wealth and the exclusion of some from economic
benefits. There is nothing in my own description of this perspective
incompatible with his own. In other words, my characterization of
social justice is correct, but his, of economics, is truly a caricature.
For another thing, if anyone were bruiting it about that
Loyola University New Orleans were really "Economics University,"
or should be, then, yes, one of Fr. Hendry’s criticisms would be
a telling one. That is, it is just plain silly to think that the
entire intellectual output of Loyola consists of economics, or is
compatible with economics, or that economics does or should permeate
all the rest of our efforts. Namely, he is defending the imposition
of an amorphous "social justice," (the content to be determined
by whom?) on everyone, and I am decidedly not making a similar
claim in behalf of economics.
Fr. Hendry
rejects my characterization of substantive social justice as: "…
poverty is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to heavily
regulate markets, or ban them outright. Racism and sexism account
for the relative plight of racial minorities and women; laws should
be passed prohibiting their exercise. Greater reliance on government
is required as the solution of all sorts of social problems. The
planet is in great danger from environmental despoliation, due to
an unjustified reliance on private property rights. Taxes are too
low; they should be raised. Charity is an insult to the poor, who
must obtain more revenues by right, not condescension. Diversity
is the sine qua non of the fair society. Discrimination is one of
the greatest evils to have ever beset mankind. Use of terminology
such as ‘mankind’ is sexist, and constitutes hate speech."
Instead, he
describes this concept in terms of egalitarianism and non-exclusion.
But just because his description is correct does not logically imply
mine is wrong. To prove this, I ask him, which of the claims that
I ascribe to social justice does he reject as non-descriptive?
He cannot decline a one of them on this ground. It is as if I describe
an elephant as a large gray mammal, and he objects on the grounds
that it has a trunk and tusks. Neither contradicts the other; both
can be correct.
Let us consider
each of these aspects, one by one, and see how they stack up against
the views of official and unofficial spokesman for the social justice
doctrine. I gave nine characterizations; I now reiterate them, followed
by similar statements by representatives:
1. … poverty
is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to heavily regulate
markets, or ban them outright.
"The gap
is growing between the rich and poor in Canada and in Ontario. A
select group of
wealthy Canadians are taking home fat pay cheques sweetened with
bonuses and stock options. Meanwhile, a growing number of working
people are seeing their incomes drop. Economic inequality is fundamentally
tied to our market system." See here
on this.
"Socialism
is the only possible economic system from the Christian point of
view" – Paul Tillich (cited in Wogaman, J. Phillip. 1977.
The Economic Debate. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, p.
133).
"The Church
must do with Marx today what Thomas (Aquinas) did with Aristotle
in medieval times – Dom Helder Camara (cited in Benne, Robert. 1981.
The
Ethic of Democratic Capitalism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
p. 4).
"… the
contradictions of capitalism are … moral, in that they are due to
sin, they are causes of human suffering, they push a wide sector
of humanity into misery" – Baum, Gregory.
2. Racism and
sexism account for the relative plight of racial minorities and
women; laws should be passed prohibiting their exercise.
In "capitalism…
every man preys like a wolf on every other man" – Moltmann,
Juergen. 1975. The
Experiment Hope. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, p. 127.
3. Greater
reliance on government is required as the solution of all sorts
of social problems.
"NETWORK
(A National Catholic Social
Justice Lobby) believes the responsibility of government is
to provide for the general welfare of the most vulnerable members
of society."
"The minimum
wage originated from the simple principle that anyone who works
full time should be able to support a family above the poverty line.
The current minimum wage has deteriorated to a level that leaves
minimum wage workers unable to provide for their families or even
live above the poverty line. It is now worth less than it was before
the last increase and will continue to drop. Congress must increase
the minimum wage incrementally to adjust for inflation, and it has
not done so in the past six years" (NETWORK,
A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby).
4. The planet
is in great danger from environmental despoliation, due to an unjustified
reliance on private property rights.
"Previous
generations of Canadians had struggled to extend their economic,
social, and environmental rights. But their efforts to democratically
regulate the economic sphere and redistribute national income encountered
increasing resistance from corporations anxious to improve their
profits. In this new climate of global competitiveness, governments
compromise when corporations threaten to leave the country. They
offering lower labour costs, lower environmental standards,
lower corporate taxes, and lower social spending. The state is thus
effectively re-tooled to serve the interests of big business. Increasingly,
the prime role of governments today is to guarantee security for
profitable transnational investment" (emphasis added; see Centre
for Social Justice).
"Although the
allocation of property rights sufficient to generate a complete
set of current markets may be consistent with momentary equilibrium,
it has been shown that this will generate a time path for the resources
of the global system that is either infeasible or inter-temporally
inefficient and almost certainly ecologically unsustainable." (Commons,
Mick and Charles Perrings. 1992. "Toward an Ecological Economics
of Sustainability." Ecological Economics. Vol. 6, p.
30.)
5. Taxes are
too low; they should be raised.
"…when
governments are in retreat (as they have been for the last decade),
this bad dynamic (income inequality) gets even worse (see Centre
for social Justice).
"Strictly
speaking, a rich Christian is a contradiction in terms." Herron,
George D. 1890. Sermon: The Message of Jesus to Men of Wealth.
(cited in Reason, December 1986, p. 34).
"Mr. Bush
… has certainly been profligate with the people’s money, pushing
through his reckless tax cuts…" Herbert, Bob. 2004. "Duty
and Privilege." The New York Times. 2/13/04, p. A31.
6. Charity
is an insult to the poor, who must obtain more revenues by right,
not condescension.
"A prominent
anti-poverty group slammed the NDP government yesterday for its
‘shameful’ treatment of poor people through ‘demeaning’ charity
programs as Christmas approaches. ‘It's shameful that the NDP, especially
at Christmas, is not promoting justice and is promoting a demeaning
form of redistributing wealth through charity,’ said Linda Moreau
of End
Legislated Poverty."
"All disabled
activists know that charity is a dirty word. As David Hevey once
wrote, ‘charity advertising serves as the calling-card of an inaccessible
society.’ Charities promote medical research and the idea of cure;
charities institutionalise disabled people; charities are run by
non-disabled do-gooders who think they know best about our lives.
No wonder the leading slogan of the disability movement has been
‘rights not charity.’" Source: here.
7. Diversity
is the sine qua non of the fair society.
See the recent
Supreme Court decision on the University of Michigan affirmative
action case, Grutter
vs Bollinger.
8. Discrimination
is one of the greatest evils to have ever beset mankind.
See on this
here,
here,
here,
and, particularly, here.
But discrimination
is entirely compatible with the libertarian law code that prohibits,
only, physical invasions against person or legitimately owned property.
Discrimination, in sharp contrast, is mere refusal to interact
with someone, whether personally or commercially. We all, naturally,
tend to focus on the latter. For example, we see great evil in discriminating
against someone on the basis of race, gender, etc., in terms of
employment, service at a lunch counter, etc.
But why do
we not have a right to withhold our person and property from those
we have no wish to deal with in this manner? The market, in any
case, tends to address such issues so that the people who are being
discriminated against do not suffer. If group A is not being hired
at all, or is paid wages below productivity levels, or is not being
served lunch, that implies that great profits can be earned by others
from doing just these things. In this way, free enterprise tends
to squelch any harm that might be done to minorities.
Moreover, it
is a great puzzle why discrimination law works in only one direction.
It is illegal for a store owner to prohibit certain types of people
from his premises, but not for customers to eschew certain types
of restaurants on the basis of racial or ethnic discrimination.
True, it might be more difficult to find and arrest someone who
refuses to patronize a Chinese or Italian restaurant on the basis
of these discriminatory motives, but we’re talking principle here.
What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
Let us focus
for a moment not on commercial discrimination, but on the personal
variety. If discrimination is such an evil, both versions
of it, surely, should be prohibited by law. But this would logically
imply, among other things, compulsory bi-sexuality, since both homosexuals
and heterosexuals are "evil" discriminators when it comes
to choosing a bed partner. The failure of the anti-discriminators
to advocate arrest of all non bi-sexuals shows that even they do
not take their own views seriously. If not they, then why should
we?
9. Use of terminology
such as "mankind" is sexist and constitutes hate speech.
A venerable
politically correct pro–"social justice" newspaper
refers to "… that Federal official who’s so eager to banish
words with ‘man’ in them. He urges ‘synthetic’ instead of ‘man-made,
for instance, and ‘humankind’ instead of ‘mankind’" (New
York Times editorial, p. 22E, 6/2/1985).
Needless to
say, I am not going to be able to point to a precise "smoking
gun" on each of these points. I was paraphrasing the left-wing
social justice movement, not directly quoting from their literature,
after all. However, I think I have shown enough overlap between
my attributions to them, and what they and their close allies actually
say, to show that I did not create a straw man, and then knock it
down, contrary to Fr. Hendry’s contention.
But, let us
suppose, arguendo, that I am entirely incorrect in my interpretation
of social justice, and that my learned friend is totally in the
right on this matter. Even under these heroic assumptions, still,
his thesis that Loyola University New Orleans is and ought to remain
a social justice university cannot be sustained. In the substantive
sense, why must we all oppose great disparities of wealth? From
my perspective, assuming that these disparities are the result of
peaceful market interaction, they are to be defended, not
opposed. With regard to the exclusion of some from economic benefits,
it all depends upon precisely how this is accomplished. If
by coercive means, such as unions, or guild restrictions, or through
a myriad of other government regulations, I am against it. But if
this is defined as rich people keeping for themselves that which
they have come by honestly, then, in my view, they have a legal
right to do exactly that; e.g., to "exclude" the poor
from forcibly taking their possessions (with or without aid from
government to this end). The point is, Fr. Hendry’s defense of social
justice would impose his beliefs on those such as me who disagree
with his solutions for social problems. What, then, of academic
freedom, of which Loyola University New Orleans boasts? What, then,
of intellectual, as opposed to skin color or gender or other category
of non-intellectual, diversity?
Nor can Fr.
Hendry be allowed to get away with his claim that his version of
social justice is somehow Above It All. No. If he wants to make
specific policy recommendations that require, as his do, coercing
some human beings to do or refrain from doing things that are not
mala in se he must explain why imposing his values on other
people against their will is the moral course of action. He must
get down into the trenches with the rest of us contenders for truth
and justice in political economy; he cannot be allowed his perch
on high. His political views are no more "a value framework
that provides a basis for evaluating … ideologies" than are
mine. Both are ideologies.
Although the
argument Tu Quoque does not constitute a knock out blow, logically
speaking, it is still a powerful one. It is the rare person who
welcomes a valid charge of hypocrisy. Since Fr. Hendry was kind
enough to employ it in my direction, let me return the favor.
 If
social justice really argues against "great disparities in
the distribution of wealth," and if he, personally, is a member
of the Catholic Church that advocates this doctrine, why, then,
does he not argue in favor of this organization selling its palatial
estates, and doing something "socially just" with the
proceeds, e.g., giving them to the poor, which would reduce these
"great disparities." Specifically, with regard to Loyola
University New Orleans; this institution occupies very valuable
real estate. Why not sell it, locate to a cheaper area, pocket the
difference, to these same ends? Or, dare I say it, perhaps the University
should start to pay property taxes to help fund local governmental
services, including the public schools.
 If
social justice really argues against "exclusion of some from
access to the benefits of economic and social development"
why, then, does Loyola University New Orleans insist upon "excellence?"
Why, that is, pick the smartest of the applicants for admission?
These students will be accepted by other exceptional schools, if
not this one. Why, not, instead, purposefully enroll the inept student,
who is "excluded" by all and sundry? And why seek outstanding
teachers/scholars, on these same grounds? True, increasing the demand
for poor teachers may promote egalitarianism, but they will hardly
help students. But this is a conundrum for the communitarians to
address; I will leave it to them.
May
25, 2007
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.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
