Whatever
defenses of Hans Hermann Hoppe against the forces of PC I have
thus far seen all make valid points but also give a slightly misleading
impression, that universities have raised "nondiscrimination"
to their highest value, which is where the chief problem in this
situation lies. If universities had been less interested in what
Hoppe’s accuser praises as the "sexual revolution,"
then academic administrators might be turning to other objects
of concern, particularly defending "academic freedom."
The University of Nevada administration has sided with a lesbian
activist, who accused Hans of hateful speech, because universities
just happen to prefer nondiscrimination to intellectual freedom.
If the faculties would change their minds tomorrow, then the right
sorts of values might come into favor and some future Hans would
be spared the indignity that this one has had to endure.
Allow me
to respond to this argument that it is only partially true. While
universities plainly gravitate toward the multicultural Left,
they nonetheless do not act independently of the administrative
state in carrying out their policies. They do exactly what the
Department of Justice and various congressional agencies and their
multitudinous staffs expect university officials to do. At my
college I know administrators who are personally conservative
but talk up affirmative action night and day, because their jobs
require them to keep the government off everyone’s back, by preaching
"diversity." Governmental guidelines mandate the practice
of nondiscrimination not only by recruiting "minorities"
but also by creating a "non-hostile work environment"
once these designated victims arrive. A scrappy jurist at the
University of Texas, Lino A. Graglia, has published extensively
on the path leading from governmentally mandated nondiscrimination
and minority recruitment to the suppression of academic freedom,
in the name of "protecting" the feelings of those who
have been recruited. The same path became a fast track since Title
Nine was introduced in 1978 under President Carter, to "protect"
female workers against male discrimination and harassment. Is
it surprising that such protection, which Hoppe’s accuser correctly
understands as trumping academic freedom in higher education,
has become the academic highest value? The accuser is dealing
with political reality when she claims to be representing "cherished
ideals" before which academic freedom has no standing. Such
freedom "must be squashed at all costs" when it interferes
with the higher multicultural Good. The "democratic"
managerial state has made this so, and it would remain that way
whether or not a power-hungry lesbian had gone after a conscientious
economist last year on clearly manufactured charges. It also makes
no difference in terms of the possibility for mischief whatever
Professor Hoppe said or did not say. His accuser, who has government
agencies on her side, can call him a bigot and harasser and the
burden of proof falls on him. What we are describing is not a
choice of values but the jackboot of public administration, which
has been rendered more fearsome by the empowerment of self-proclaimed
victims.
Clearly
this comes as no surprise to my good friend, who is entangled
in this mess and is a controversial critic of the democratic welfare
state. If anything, Hans understates the utter vileness of what
he criticizes, a regime that not only strips us of property to
enrich itself and practices immigration flooding at the expense
of unwilling property owners but also destroys once established
freedom by appealing to sensitivity and "anti-fascism."
What may be the ultimate embarrassment about trying to get out
of this bureaucratically induced quandary is the need to ask help
from the meddlesome, grasping regime that has caused it. One has
to pretend that one’s First Amendment right had been compromised
by independent agents. One then appeals to a court to misinterpret
the First Amendment, by pretending that it is the federal government’s
power to use that amendment against the states and state schools,
which are doing the bidding of the Feds. One petitions the guilty
to ask for succor against those they’ve unleashed against us.
As Hans and I would both agree, it is one more illustration of
how the democratic deity has failed decent people.
February
14, 2005