Seeking lawyer to sue my university for libel

I am seeking a lawyer to sue my university, Loyola New Orleans, for libel. This problem all started out when the NY Times falsely accused me of supporting slavery. Thereupon, the president of my university, Fr. Kevin Wildes, SJ, published a letter in the school paper expressing “dismay” that I would take this position. He did not consult me about this beforehand, otherwise I could have cleared this up. I am already suing the NY Times for libel, and now wish to do so regarding Fr. Wildes, SJ, the trustees of the university who have not answered my request for justice (see below), and 18 Loyola faculty members who published a similar letter also in the school paper.

Hopefully, the lawyer will undertake this lawsuit on a contingency basis. I would prefer a libertarian attorney, if at all possible, but this is not necessary. If you fit this bill, and/or know of people who do, please get in touch with me at [email protected] and/or ask them to do so.

Here is some background information on this matter (the links to the letters in the Maroon, the school paper no longer function; I have asked that this be corrected, but the editors have not seen fit to respond to my request either):

Memo

Date: 10/17/14

To: The members of the board of trustees of Loyola University New Orleans

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

From: Prof. Walter E. Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Dux Academicus award winner, 2007

I have been threatened on campus with physical harm by two young African-American males. I now fear for my physical safety on campus and off campus as well. One of these young men said to me something to this effect: “You’re the professor who thinks slavery wasn’t that bad. We’re going to get you for that.” They then sneered at me and walked off before I could try to convince them that I had never said that, that I totally disagreed with that pernicious perspective, that I had been misquoted entirely out of context by the New York Times, by Fr. Kevin Wildes, SJ and by 18 faculty members of Loyola University.

I am now writing to you with the request that you use your good offices to ameliorate this situation; to bring me back insofar as is possible to the status quo ante, before my good name became linked with so despicable a viewpoint. I make this request of you both as a matter of justice because I am entirely innocent of these charges, and, also, as a matter personal safety. Thanks to the president of our university (Maroon, February 6, 2014) and to 18 faculty members at Loyola (Maroon, February 6, 2014) who made this specific charge, I am now known on campus as a person who thinks slavery was “not so bad.”

For weeks after the publication of these two letters in the Maroon, I feared that some ignorant person would engage in assault and battery on my person as a result of their acts. I had reported this concern of mine to the Loyola University Police Department under complaint #0736 on March 1, 2014. In the event, one day later, I was indeed threatened, as mentioned above. I registered a complaint about this to the New Orleans Police Department on March 2, 2014 (complaint # C-03185-14) and added a report of this new occurrence to my initial complaint to the LUPD. Should I suffer actual physical violence in the future, I will hold Fr. Wildes, S.J. and the 18 signatories of their letter morally culpable for inciting a mob mentality on campus against me.

How did it happen that these important members of the Loyola community decided to make these fallacious charges? It all began when The New York Times interviewed me about libertarianism. One of the issues discussed concerned slavery. I maintained that the only reason slavery was an abomination was that it was compulsory; innocent people were abducted, kidnapped, and forced against their will into servitude. Had this been done on a fully voluntary basis, a total and complete hypothetical situation if ever there was one, then and only then would slavery have been “not so bad.” The New York Times’ interpretation? Block thinks that actual slavery as practiced in the 19th century and before was “not so bad.” But I was trying to probe WHY slavery was such an abomination. I contended that it had nothing to do with picking cotton, singing songs, eating gruel, etc. Rather, it was due only, and solely, to the fact that the institution of slavery was compulsory.

I later found a quote from Frederick Douglass (a 19th century equivalent of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X) saying much the same thing, albeit far more eloquently:

“My feelings were not the result of any marked cruelty in the treatment I received; they sprang from the consideration of my being a slave at all. It was slavery, not its mere incidents I hated. I had been cheated. I saw through the attempt to keep me in ignorance. I saw that slaveholders would have gladly made me believe that they were merely acting under the authority of God in making a slave of me and in making slaves of others, and I felt to them as to robbers and deceivers. The feeding and clothing me well could not atone for taking my liberty from me.” — Growing in knowledge. – Frederick Douglass, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass: From 1817-1882 (published 1882)

Namely, the “mere incidents” of slavery, picking cotton, eating gruel, singing songs, had nothing to do with the viciousness and depravity of the “curious institution.” Rather, it was the fact that the slaves were forced into that status that was the problem.

Of course, the New York Times also bears some responsibility for this predicament I am now enmeshed in, but I contend that were it not for these two subsequent letters to the Maroon, my situation on and off campus would be much safer.

Did it not occur to Fr. Wildes SJ and the 18 faculty members to first approach me to verify what I had actually said before verbally attacking me? In denying me this common courtesy they have perpetuated misinformation and exposed me to threats of physical harm. Their rush to condemn evidences a major lapse in academic integrity and a total disregard for fair play in intellectual discourse. This process continues. Prof. Hughey, in the March 21, 2014 issue of the Maroon goes so far as to assert the following:
“I find it hard to understand how —in a time when one of your own faculty members — Walter Block — openly defends segregation and has suggested that slavery was ‘not so bad’ — you can decide to let go one of the more robust teachers and scholars of an antithetical and empirically grounded position on race, slavery and segreation (sic).”
Thanks to the scurrilous letters of Fr. Wildes, SJ and that group of 18, my name is further dragged through the mud. If this were just an academic debate, I could take it. I have been criticized in the literature many times before. I have a thick skin. But this is an issue that far transcends mere academic dialogue. It reaches to a hostile working environment, and to actual threats against my physical safety.
Was I president of Loyola University, and one of the members of my faculty was quoted in the New York Times to the effect that slavery was “not so bad,” I would have immediately called him into my office and said something along the lines of “Have you lost your mind? Tell me that you were misquoted, please!” Then, when this hypothetical professor not only claimed precisely that, but further, offered evidence for that claim with a long paper trail of articles in refereed journals, instead of expressing “dismay” at this professor, as Fr. Wildes, SJ did of me, I would have defended him against the New York Times. Fr. Wildes, SJ did none of this. He never spoke to me once about this, despite my numerous requests of him that he do so.
Why am I writing to you, the board of trustees of Loyola University? I full well realize that you are busy men and women. I do so for several reasons. First, I have exhausted all other means open to me within the university in my quest for justice. To wit, (1) I have attempted to put my case before the University Police and the Office of Emergency Management office; I could only file a report with the former; the latter declined to meet with me nor would they allow me to file a complaint with them. (2) I went to the Ombudsman, with a request that he set up a meeting for me with Fr. Wildes, SJ, with the 18 faculty members who also unfairly condemned me for supposedly supporting slavery, and with the members of the Diversity Task Force who found me guilty of racism and sexism (also on a hearsay basis) several years ago. The Ombudsman declined my latter two requests, and was unsuccessful with the first. (3) I went to the reconciliation committee, and failed there, again, on all three counts. (4) I took my case to the Faculty Senate, and was unsuccessful one more time. (5) I asked both Provost Manganaro, and former Loyola President James Carter, SJ to try to set up a meeting with me with Fr. Wildes, SJ to discuss this matter in a civil manner; neither succeeded. (6) I wrote a letter to Fr. Wildes, SJ, attached, but he has not replied to me. Second, we are now undertaking a $100 million fundraising effort, Faith in the Future: The Campaign for Loyola University New Orleans. The last thing I want is more heightened negative publicity (I am already suing the New York Times for libel) at such an important epoch in our school’s history. Despite having been mistreated, I still love this university. Third, you are my last best hope within the academic community to right this wrong.
I now make several specific requests of you:

1. That you use your good offices to convince Fr. Wildes, SJ that the appropriate course of action for him to take is to renounce his article in the Maroon, and to publicly apologize to me for publishing it.

2. That you require of Fr. Wildes, SJ that he reopen my condemnation by the Diversity Task Force of 2008. No member of our academic community should ever be condemned without being able to give his side of the story; to launch a defense; to question his accusers. I have no objection to being tried for this supposed thought crime of mine. But, I really would like to be tried before being found guilty. I don’t believe in any statute of limitations on justice. Otherwise, reparations for slavery, for the Holocaust, would be unjustified.

Re hostile work environment, denial of academic freedom, physical danger

To date neither Fr. Wildes, SJ, nor any of these fellow 18 faculty colleagues of mine have seen fit to apologize for their libelous remarks about me. I feel that my academic freedom has been violated. Thanks to their actions, their incitement, their libels, I am no longer as free to pursue my academic career of teaching, researching, writing and publishing. I feel they have placed me in a hostile work environment and in actual physical danger. My reputation has been desecrated on campus.

What to do about that letter in the Maroon penned by 18 of my fellow faculty members? It would be a clear violation of their academic freedom to “order” them to retract their libelous and incitement-filled comments. I certainly urge no such course of action.

The best way, in my opinion, to deal with their call to “condemn” me is to do exactly as they suggest. They ask that the Loyola University community “condemn and censure (me) for (my) recurring public assaults on the values of Loyola University, its mission…” But what they have in mind, extrapolating from how the Diversity Task Force treated me in 2008 (see below in the reference section) is to do so behind closed doors. I speculate on the basis of this extrapolation that did they have their ‘druthers, they would gather several “scholars” of their ilk and find me guilty of supporting slavery.

In my view, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let us by all means implement their proposal. Let us have a university-wide open hearing to decide if I am to be condemned and censured for my views on slavery. I ask you, the trustees, to appoint a three judge jury or panel to hear from any or all of the 18 signatories, or from anyone else, who is willing to offer evidence in support of this contention that I think slavery “not so bad.” But then, also, allow me to tell my side of the story; to cross examine them, and to be cross examined by them. Then, when my name is cleared as I have no doubt it will be, and the publication and promulgation of the findings of this panel were publicized, this would go a long way toward ensuring my safety on and off campus. I full well realize that in this paragraph I am requesting you to make up a new process out of whole cloth, completely outside of the faculty handbook. That document, the faculty handbook, utterly failed me in the case of the Diversity Task Force. I see no reason why justice would be done to me in this case, were we to be limited to our faculty handbook. In effect, I am asking that the faculty handbook be modified so as to incorporate a process appropriate to the quandary I now find myself enmeshed in. No longer should faculty members be found guilty of anything without being offered a chance to defend themselves.

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that in a conspiracy, each party is entirely guilty for the entire damage, even though every member may have only contributed a part of it. So, in a sense it is moot as to who is the inciter: The New York Times, Fr. Wildes or the group of 18. They are all fully responsible for any results of their acts in my view if my understanding of the laws is correct. I am determined to seek justice in all three cases.

It is my understanding that in addition to being President of Loyola University, Fr. Wildes, SJ is also a member of the faculty. In this latter role he, also, has academic freedom, and I would not want my call to deal with him on this matter to be interpreted as my request that his academic freedom be in any way curtailed (although as a faculty colleague, I think he should at least have the decency to reply to my offer to debate him on these issues). However, academic freedom only stretches so far. I do not think it covers incitement. Secondly, Fr. Wildes SJ did sign his letter as president of the university. As such, he is a member of the administration, not only the faculty, and does not in this role have academic freedom, in my possibly mistaken interpretation.

It is time to conclude this letter. Please do respond. You are the leaders of our university, and I have no one else to whom to appeal inside its environs.

Yours truly,

Prof. Walter E. Block

References:

Block is accused by New York Times of thinking slavery “not so bad”:

Tanenhaus, Sam and Jim Rutenberg. 2014. “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance.” January 26; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?hp&_r=4

Block’s reply to the New York Times:

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign.” January 30; https://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=473740&preview=true

March 25, 2009. New Orleans, LA. Loyola University New Orleans, Economics Club. “Is the capitalist system guilty of racism, sexism? No.: Walter E. Block responds to his politically correct critics, defending against charges of racism and sexism.
http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv;

P.S. This letter of mine may be of interest to you. Fr. Wildes, S.J., did not respond to it:

October 8, 2014

Fr. Kevin Wildes, S.J.
President, Loyola University New Orleans

Dear Fr. Wildes, S.J.:

In my humble opinion, you have painted yourself into a corner with your letter to the Maroon of 2/6/14: Wildes, Kevin. 2014. “Letter: Walter Block has made too many assumptions and contradictions.” February 6; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-walter-block-has-made-too-many-assumptions-and-contradictions-1.2854765#.UvaMsbex6M8

Therein, you expressed “dismay” that I would “claim that chattel slavery ‘was not so bad.’” For an explanation of this event from my perspective, see below.

I would like to try to resolve this issue in a manner that hurts you personally the least, and also does the minimum possible damage to Loyola University (while still upholding elemental justice). I thereby suggest that you publish another letter to appear in the Maroon, such as one of the following half dozen versions, or something else along any of these lines:

I recently called Prof. Walter Block to my office to discuss the statement of the NY Times of January 25, 2014 which accused him of supporting slavery. Based on our discussion, I am now convinced that Block never thought that slavery was “not so bad,” and that he was indeed misquoted as saying this. At this meeting, he showed me several of his essays, published over the years, taking the exact opposite point of view (Prof. Block argued in favor of reparations to the grand children of slaves, while excoriating slavery in no uncertain terms). These sentences would be followed by one of the statements below:

1. I therefore apologize for and renounce my letter to the editor of the Maroon of February 7, 2014 in which I expressed “dismay” at Block’s supposed support for slavery. I was in error then, and I am not too proud to own up to it. We all make mistakes, and that was one of mine.

2. I therefore greatly regret my letter to the editor of the Maroon of February 7, 2014 in which I expressed “dismay” at Block’s supposed support for slavery. I was in error then, and I am not too proud to own up to it. We all make mistakes, and that was one of mine.

3. I therefore regret my letter to the editor of the Maroon of February 7, 2014 in which I expressed “dismay” at Block’s supposed support for slavery. I was in error then, and I am not too proud to own up to it. We all make mistakes, and that was one of mine.

4. What of my letter to the editor of the Maroon of February 7, 2014 in which I expressed “dismay” at Block’s supposed support for slavery? Thanks to this meeting I initiated with Prof. Block, I am no longer of this view.

5. What of my letter to the editor of the Maroon of February 7, 2014 in which I expressed “dismay” at Block’s supposed support for slavery? I am no longer of this view.

Here is an alternative to the above:
6. Due to an intentional misquotation and/or statements taken completely out of context by the New York Times, and subsequent misunderstandings and mis-communications, Professor Block has been accused of alleging that slavery was “not so bad.” On the contrary, he has over the years published several articles taking the exact opposite point of view. In fact, Prof. Block has argued in favor of reparations to the grandchildren of slaves, while excoriating slavery in no uncertain terms.

Here is my “paper trail” of articles on slavery, calling for reparations for the grand-children of slaves:

Alston and Block, 2007; Block, 1993, 2001, 2002; Block and Yeatts, 1999-2000

Alston, Wilton D. and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Reparations, Once Again.” Human Rights Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, pp. 379-392; http://tinyurl.com/2b75fl

Block, Walter E. 1993. “Malcolm X,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 18-19; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5361.aspx

Block, Walter E. 2001. “The Moral Dimensions of Poverty, Entitlements and Theft,” The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 83-93; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/block.html; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922087; http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketsandmorality.com%2Findex.php%2Fmandm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F587%2F577&ei=lBn9UuLIOtDOkQe1toHwBw&usg=AFQjCNF2MZ5XoFKKMF5UcOfOT5Kv-HQgZA&sig2=VVYWZhyl0ZmAWRAKXtkxWw

Block, Walter E. 2002. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/reparations_slavery.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-69; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf

Here is some background on this matter you may wish to consider:

Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling were excoriated for making racist statements. So was I. The only difference is that they actually said what they were accused of, whereas while I was accused of saying actual slavery was “not so bad,” I never said or wrote this. None of my accusers offered a single bit of evidence attesting to the claim that I did. Indeed, I have a long paper trail maintaining the exact opposite.

How did my NY Times interviewer come to accuse me of making this statement? He asked me to explain libertarianism to him. I said it was predicated upon the non aggression principle (NAP): the only law there should be is to prohibit initiatory violence against innocent people: murder, rape, theft, robbery, fraud, kidnapping, slavery, arson, etc., would be outlawed, but nothing else. My interviewer didn’t understand. So in an attempt to explain I said that the only thing wrong with slavery is that it was coercive. If there were a hypothetical slavery which was completely voluntary, where the slaves picked cotton, ate gruel, sang songs, then this would be “not so bad.” The real reason slavery was evil is that these things were done coercively.

I later learned that a 19th century black leader, the Malcolm X or Martin Luther King of his day, said roughly the same thing as me: “My feelings were not the result of any marked cruelty in the treatment I received; they sprang from the consideration of my being a slave at all. It was slavery, not its mere incidents I hated. I had been cheated. I saw through the attempt to keep me in ignorance. I saw that slaveholders would have gladly made me believe that they were merely acting under the authority of God in making a slave of me and in making slaves of others, and I felt to them as to robbers and deceivers. The feeding and clothing me well could not atone for taking my liberty from me.” — Growing in knowledge. – Frederick Douglass, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass: From 1817-1882 (published 1882).

I was trying to say to the NY Times that “the mere incidents” of slavery were not the quintessential evil of this horrific practice. Rather, it was coercion, the essence of slavery, that was the abomination. Out of this hypothetical they concocted the claim that I thought that actual slavery was “not so bad.” If that is not a misquote, then nothing is.

In order to further clarify this, let us consider the Nazis. Why were they evil? Was it because of goose stepping, loud rallies, big leather boots, mustaches, swastikas, weird salutes? No, no, no, no and no. These were only the “mere incidents” of Nazism. The real horror emanated from the fact that they violated the NAP; they coupled these things with coercion against innocent people. Now consider this hypothetical. Suppose there were a group that engaged in the Nazi goose stepping, loud rallies, big leather boots, mustaches, swastikas, weird salutes, etc., but never initiated violence against anyone. I would say this group, albeit weird, was “not so bad.” Had I used this example with the NYTimes, and they followed their pattern with me on slavery, they would then claim I think actual Nazis were “not so bad.” If that is not a misquote, then nothing is.

Block accused by New York Times of thinking slavery “not so bad”:

Tanenhaus, Sam and Jim Rutenberg. 2014. “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance.” January 26; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?hp&_r=4

Block’s reply to the New York Times:

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign.” January 30; https://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=473740&preview=true

Block, Walter E. 2014. “May I sue the New York Times? A Libertarian Analysis of Suing for Libel” September 5; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/walter-e-block/may-i-sue-the-ny-times/

Loyola critics of Block for thinking slavery “not so bad”:

Wildes, Kevin. 2014. “Letter: Walter Block has made too many assumptions and contradictions.” February 6; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-walter-block-has-made-too-many-assumptions-and-contradictions-1.2854765#.UvaMsbex6M8

Murphy, Laura, Anthony E. Ladd, Barbara Ewell, Charles Corprew, Laura Hope, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Angel Parham, Ashley Howard, Trimiko Melancon, Alex Mukulich, Patricia Boyett, Julie Thibodaux, Nicole Eggers, Ted Quant, Susan Weishar, Alvaro Alcazar, Lisa Martin, Judith Hunt. 2014. “Letter: Faculty says Walter Block’s claims were, once again, untrue and offensive.” February 6; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-faculty-says-walter-block-s-claims-were-once-again-untrue-and-offensive-1.2854769#.UvaP6bex6M8

Block’s response to Loyola critics:

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Wildes’ letter was based on a serious misunderstanding.” February 20; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/walter-block-calls-for-public.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; http://admin.collegepublisher.com/preview/mobile/2.6707/2.6713/1.2857243

Block, Walter E. 2014. “The faculty’s letter was misinformed and lacks integrity.” February 20;
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-the-faculty-s-letter-was-misinformed-and-lacks-integrity-1.2857245#.UwdnEE-x6M8

http://www.dailypaul.com/312959/walter-block-vs-the-world

Defenders of Block (a small selection of over 100 letters so far posted):

Anderson, William L. 2014. “The Priest and His Clever Lie.” February 25; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/william-l-anderson/the-prezs-clever-lie/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/father-wildes-does-not-have-integrity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Beane, Larry. 2014. “In response to Wildes’ letter.” February 14;
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-in-reponse-to-wildes-letter-1.2856225#.UwAGvLex6M8; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/an-appeal-to-president-of-loyola.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Cavallo, Jo Ann. 2014. “Slandering Walter Block.” February 16;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/stop-slandering-walter-block/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/is-it-time-president-of-loyola.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

DiLorenzo, Tom. 2014. “Fascism University: The Enemies of Freedom and Tolerance at Loyola University New Orleans.”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/thomas-dilorenzo/enemies-of-freedom-and-tolerance/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/on-feeble-minded-academic-marxist.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/the-truth-seeps-out-about-walter-block.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Gill, James. 2014. “Block raises controversy again.” The Advocate, February 20, p. 11B; http://theadvocate.com/columnists/8420622-55/james-gill-block-raises-controversy; http://theadvocate.com/columnists/8420622-55/james-gill-block-raises-controversy#.Uwe7Bo_-1VY.email

Henderson, David. 2014. “Open Letter to President Wildes re Professor Block.” February 13;
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/open_letter_to.html; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/no_author/should-walter-block-forgive-the-president-of-loyola-u/

Landsburg, Steven. 2014. “Block Heads.” February 13;
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/02/13/block-heads/; www.TheBigQuestions.com; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-gang-of-angry-yahoos/; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/steve-landsburg/the-gang-of-angry-yahoos/

Lingenfelter, Jonathan. 2014. “Wildes’ letter assumed too much.” February 14;
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-wildes-letter-assumed-too-much-1.2856224#.UwAD3rex6M8; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/an-undergraduate-tries-to-educate-kevin-wildes-president-of-loyola-university-new-orleans/

Wenzel, Robert. 2014. “The Outpouring of Support for Walter Block.” March 1;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/the-outpouring-of-support-for-walter.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Wenzel, Robert. 2014. “Distorting A Champion of Liberty: The Walter Block Controversy.” March 1; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/distorting-champion-of-liberty-walter.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Woods, Tom. 2014. “Jesuit University attacks libertarian professor; I respond.”
http://tomwoods.com/blog/jesuit-university-attacks-libertarian-professor-i-respond/; http://libertycrier.com/jesuit-university-attacks-libertarian-professor-help-fight-back/

**
Adams, Devinn. 2014. “Professor accuses New York Times of libel.” February, 20; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6710/professor-accuses-new-york-times-of-libel-1.2857201#.UwZkdxb99zo

Morris, Robert. 2014. “Professor’s defense of segregated lunch counters creates controversy at Loyola University.” Uptown Messenger. February 20; http://uptownmessenger.com/2014/02/professors-defense-of-segregated-lunch-counters-creates-controversy-at-loyola-university/

Cavallo, Christina. 2014. “Columbia Student Defends Walter Block.” February 20;

Columbia Student Defends Walter Block

Wolverton, Joe. 2014. “NYT Smears Rand Paul with Claims of Racism, Religious Fanaticism.” February 1; http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/17535-nyt-smears-rand-paul-with-claims-of-racism-religious-fanaticism

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/loyola-university-president-responds-to.html

Lazarowitz, Scott. 2014. “Yes, Slavery Is Offensive.” February 24;

Leftists Talking About Past Slavery


Light, Christian, Robert Wenzel. 2014. “Loyola University President Responds to Criticism Regarding His Walter Block Comments with More Outrageous Comments.” February 24;

Jesuit Impenitent

Smith, Adam. 2014. “A Tulane Student Writes About His Interaction with Walter Block.” March 4; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/a-tulane-student-writes-about-his.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

**

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Sue New York Times for libel?!?!” February 1;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/sue-new-york-times-for-libel/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/will-walter-block-be-on-firm.html

Block, Walter E. 2014. “A Libertarian Analysis of Suing for Libel.” February 9;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/walter-block-case-for-suing-new-york.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/is-new-york-times-agent-of-government.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Share

3:15 pm on October 27, 2014