On December 10, the Provost of Loyola University of New Orleans wrote the following to Walter Block. Walter is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola, and a contributor here at Econlib.
Re: Another complaint
Dear Dr. Block,
I write to inform you that I am in receipt of three additional complaints against you from three different students. The key allegations are troubling and they are in clear violation of Loyola’s values, mission and policy. Indeed, the alleged actions are flagrant violations of the well-established principles of Catholic morality and in clear violation of Chapter 9 of the Faculty Handbook. These complaints were received during the course of our ongoing investigation into similar alleged conduct.
The three complainants allege that your statements and commentary have included such abhorrent comments as “slavery wasn’t bad”, “women make less money because they are lazy or incapable,” “women are paid less because they don’t work as hard, and it’s the same with people of color”, and that “‘Disability Act’ shouldn’t exist.” One of the students noted that you openly expressed your racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist statements publicly in classes, in your writings, and in your emails. This had a profoundly negative impact on the student’s experience at Loyola.
These alleged actions indicate a pattern of complete disregard for Loyola’s values and mission considering the prior investigation and complaints we have received from students. Central to our Jesuit, Catholic identity is our commitment to human dignity and the whole person. I am extremely disappointed that, in spite of your written commitment to “do better”, you seem to continue to ignore your obligation as a faculty member of a Jesuit, Catholic University. You also seem to continue to create a hostile and discriminatory environment for our students.
The University has an obligation under Title IX to ensure that the educational environment is welcoming, equitable and not permeated by ridicule and comments that are derogatory on the basis of gender, race or any other classification. Faculty conduct must be guided by the principles stated in our Faculty Handbook that “concern for the student as a person is central to the Jesuit educational mission.”
As with prior complaints, we will investigate these additional complaints, and you will receive a written determination regarding these alleged actions. Please note, that in light of (1) the number of complaints we received regarding the substantially same alleged conduct, (2) the impact these alleged actions is having on our students, (3) Loyola’s legal obligations, and (4) your apparent continued violation of your obligations under the Faculty Handbook, Loyola may be forced to institute disciplinary proceedings under Chapter 9 of the Faculty Handbook based upon the outcome of these investigations.
Sincerely,
Tanuja Singh, DBA
Provost and SVP of Academic Affairscc: Michael Capella, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Business
Notice what Dr. Singh doesn’t do: she doesn’t invite Walter to respond. Instead, she writes “we will investigate these additional complaints, and you will receive a written determination regarding these alleged actions.” Wouldn’t someone who cares about the truth want to know if these alleged actions even occurred?
And Walter is willing to help her find the truth. On that same day, Walter replied:
Dear Provost Singh:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this letter of yours.
I have recorded every session of my course this semester. Please tell me on which dates it is alleged that I made these statements. Also, the approximate time during each session I am accused of making them. I shall then respond to these complaints.
Your letter appears to be a summary of three separate complaints made by three of my students in my law and econ class. Please send me, verbatim, a copy of the complaints they sent you.
Whatever happened to that complaint made the first week of this semester to the effect that I likened Ghandi to Hitler, and that the Mises Institute is a Nazi organization? I responded to that in early September, and I have not heard your assessment of that complaint.
Best regards,
Walter
Campus Reform tells some of the story here.
Some students who are fans of Walter put together a letter, but it seems to be one that was written in response to similar threats some time ago. It’s here. It’s titled “Give Walter Block a Pay Raise.”
I signed it and wrote the following as my explanation:
Walter is a thinker who tries to get his students to think. And, from everything I can tell, he succeeds. Of course, like one of the students who complained, I was not in Walter’s class. But I have known him since attending a one-week conference with him (and with Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek) in June 1975. Walter provokes in a friendly way. But he is one of the least racist people I know.
I notice that Provost Singh thinks that a statement that the Disability Act shouldn’t exist is racist and/or sexist. Seriously? Is she aware that one of the groups that has been most hurt by that law is people who are disabled? The reason is that the requirement for accommodating those with disabilities makes employers hesitant to hire disabled people. But I wouldn’t accuse Provost Singh of being against the disabled because she favors a law that hurts them. She should just admit her ignorance and let professors who are opening students’ minds continue to do so.
I don’t have a position, by the way, on whether Walter deserves a pay increase, although if we buy into the idea that people should be paid more for taking risk, then he probably does.
The Provost arrived on campus in early 2020. She may not be familiar with a past attack on Walter by the President of Loyola that he handled very well. Here’s my post on a previous attack.
Postscript:
In reading Provost Singh’s letter to Walter, I noticed something else that’s concerning. She writes “The key allegations are troubling and they are in clear violation of Loyola’s values, mission and policy.” I agree with her that allegations of racism and sexism are troubling. (As noted, I don’t agree that opposing a law that hurts disabled people is troubling.) But how can she say that the allegations “are in clear violation of Loyola’s values, mission and policy?” That would be true only if the allegations are true. Has the Provost already made up her mind? Now that would be troubling.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Dec 22 2021 at 9:14pm
Totally agree here. Once I started running things one of the first things I learned is that you always get the other side of the story. People lie, exaggerate and sometimes make honest mistakes. Never start talking about punishments until you find out what really happened.
Steve
zeke5123
Dec 22 2021 at 9:16pm
It appears to be an entirely unserious email about a very serious topic. Take for example the following:
First, it seems clear there is some degree of context missing (i.e., not even entire sentences are quoted). Were these one-off statements? Was there any context that makes the statement seem less offensive or a joke? Are these paraphrases that perhaps the student didn’t understand (or purposefully misconstrued).
Second, there is a laundry list of bad ideas Block evidently promoted, i.e., “racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist” thoughts. Yet, the examples (limited and perhaps misleading as they are) seemingly only address racist and sexist. It reads almost like “well if someone is racist they likely are homophobic and transphobic as well.” There was zero attempt to connect the purported statements with the charges. Why? The obvious reason is because the student claimed comments were “racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist” and the assertion was sufficient (ipse dixit).
As an institution, I would want some degree of evidence (e.g., is there an email — the student claimed these comments were in email — was that email provided and if so why not quote from that email) before I open the investigation. If there is no such evidence, why am I opening an investigation? If there is evidence, then when I present the charge I would want to present the preliminary evidence. Letting the accused know the evidence against them is a bedrock principle of western judicial proceedings for a long time (because it lets the accused explain why the facts might be wrong, or incomplete). Instead, this kind of quasi judicial proceeding where the charge is made and determination made without (i) allowing the accused a chance to respond or (ii) even know the evidence against the accused is so lacking in basic fundamental fairness that it evokes the star chamber (in process albeit not in punishment).
It is distressing that “well-established principles of Catholic morality” and “Loyola’s values, mission and policy” evidently are orthogonal to basic principles of fundamental fairness in quasi judicial proceedings. Hopefully the star chamber tactics give way to fundamental fairness though I fear they are more likely to transition to inquisition tactics.
Daniel B
Dec 23 2021 at 1:52am
I vaguely remember that a few years ago, I read a section in The Black Book of Communism about some prisoners in a labor camp (I’ve been unable to find this section again in the book; hopefully one of you guys can help me do so). The prisoners were required to go to meetings where they had to read a communist newspaper (my very fuzzy memory says it was called The Red Star) and discuss its articles.
That sounds nice until we remember that, inherently, the discussions were going to be so one-sided that they effectively don’t deserve the name. The inmates were too busy pursuing other goals – such as survival – to devote much time to getting informed enough to see through any inaccuracies in the articles. And of course the authorities weren’t going to criticize the sacred cows they believed in, nor were they likely to tolerate people who did. Uninformed participants plus biased gatekeepers equals slanted discussions and slanted conclusions.
There’s a parallel between those readings sessions and too many college classes today. If your college was like mine (University of California, Irvine), then the chances are that you weren’t exposed to many arguments on important issues (such as the negative effects of the ADA), or particularly pressured by yourself or others to get exposed to them.
Block is doing something that way too many teachers aren’t – exposing people to the other side (the free market, in this case a more free market take on the ADA). His reward is an authority who doesn’t like that her sacred cow is getting criticized and wants to use that unwelcome criticism to cause him problems, as David points out in his petition signature.
To give another example of one-sidedness, I took an intro to sociology class that never exposed me to the other side when it came to income inequality statistics. The latest those statistics went back in that class was 1980 and the graph they were presented in gave the impression that inequality increased since then. But what about before 1980? At the time I’d seen evidence that “the degree of income inequality was about the same in 1939 and 1999 but, in the latter year, you could have said that income inequality had increased from the 1980s onward because there were fluctuations in between the years in which it was about the same” (Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics (p. 360). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. Citing Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, “Decreasing (and Then Increasing) Inequality in America: A Tale of Two Half-Centuries,” The Causes and Consequences of Increasing Inequality, edited by Finis Welch (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 38, 39). The basic point about looking at trends before 1980 somehow never came up. Sadly, the must-read writings of Thomas Sowell on inequality statistics were also not mentioned.
In short, yes there is an academic curtain. The point of my labor camp parallel isn’t to say the provost is evil. The point of it is simply to show that a lot of college “discussions” don’t deserve the name “discussions” because they’re way too similar to the labor camp newspaper discussions.
Now that my rant is over, I must ask David to please post some ADA readings for us in the comments section 😀 I want to learn more! My cursory research on the ADA has yielded https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html and https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/04/25/hobbling-businesses as nice links
David Henderson
Dec 23 2021 at 10:46am
Thank you. Not a rant. Very well stated. I’lll find the NBER study and post it as a separate item. At least I think it’s an NBER study. 🙂
David Henderson
Dec 24 2021 at 4:54pm
Here’s my response:
https://www.econlib.org/ada-hurt-disabled-workers/
Knut P. Heen
Dec 23 2021 at 7:59am
The provost should be fired for incompetence.
“These alleged actions…” followed by “I am extremely disappointed…”
Would not a competent provost investigate the alleged actions before she became extremely disappointed?
The author of “Defending the Undefendable” will survive this.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 23 2021 at 8:43am
I see nothing wrong with the Provost’s letter. She is apprising Professor Block of complaints that may be serious against him. The critical statement is,
What is wrong with this? Nowhere in any of what David posted outlines how Loyola will investigate and deal with the charges. Maybe they have a good, bad, or indifferent process; none of us know this. It is difficult to come to any conclusion when things are taken out of context and we do not have the full story; nor do we have any indication of what the ‘prior investigation and complaints’ were.
David errors in bringing this to us as readers without providing the full story. I for one cannot come to any conclusion about the seriousness of the complaints.
Jon Murphy
Dec 23 2021 at 9:11am
That is not David’s error. That’s the Provost’s. David’s point is that the Provost has already come to a conclusion regarding the seriousness of the complaints without the full story.
My own experience with academic “justice” systems is like his. When I was an undergrad, I was accused of threatening and harassing behavior.* I was informed at 3AM by campus police to show up at a designated place for the hearing. I was allowed to bring one faculty member to act as an advisor. Other than that, I was forbidden all assistance. On the day of, I was brought before a tribunal. I was asked a simple question: “Do you deny you wrote this letter?” I replied: “What am I being accused of?” It was at this point, and this point only, when I found out what I was being accused of. I asked who accused me. They refused to tell me. I asked to see the evidence against me. They refused to show it. I asked “What about this behavior is threatening?” They replied “Irrelevant.” (At this point, my faculty advisor who was a George Will-style conservative, may he rest in pace) laughed out loud.
The judgement was already passed. My side of the story was “irrelevant.” Indeed, it wasn’t until I threatened to sue them in federal court was I allowed to see the evidence against me and respond.
In Block’s case, the Provost’s decision has been made. That’s crystal clear by her letter.
*In case folks are wondering, the behavior was writing a letter to the school newspaper. The newspaper had written a factually incorrect story about the President of the University. I knew it was incorrect because I worked for the President at the time and was present when the supposed incident took place. The supposed victim was not there. I wrote to the paper saying they must retract the story, and if they didn’t I would go to a real newspaper with evidence they made it all up.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 23 2021 at 9:38am
I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion. I do not see any thing explicit in the Provost’s letter that states this, The final paragraph outlines the possible action(s) that will take place. Until someone reads Chapter 9 of the Loyola faculty handbook that outlines the disciplinary process, one cannot make any judgement about whether the process is impartial or not. All we have in the OP are two letters and some links to other writings by David and a campus publication on the subject.
Presumptions of guilt or innocence require proof and we do not have that in this post and resultant discussion.
zeke5123
Dec 23 2021 at 9:49am
First, presumptions of guilt or innocence are not a function of proof but instead are about the burden of proof.
Second, it certainly seems like the provost has made up her mind.
There is no “if true” anywhere to be found. Instead, the statements the actions are flagrant violations or are in clear violation.
But here is the smoking gun.
How can she be “extremely disappointed” if she has not concluded on the matter?
Jon Murphy
Dec 23 2021 at 9:58am
Zeke (and David) made the point. I’m going to repeat it again:
zeke5123
Dec 23 2021 at 9:14am
First, maybe you are right. Maybe there is a super fair process and the provost wrote a terrible email (seemingly assuming the complaint was true and poorly describing the process). But that is a problem even if the process is a fair one that the Provost would write such an emotional, poorly drafted email on such a serious topic.
Second, the process seems already a problem. The email suggests there is in fact written evidence (i.e., emails) against the Professor but does not provide such emails (i.e., does not provide the evidence against him). That is prima facie evidence of a bad process.
Jon Murphy
Dec 23 2021 at 8:56am
Reading these allegations, I feel quite confident in claiming that Block never said them. The reason is simple: several of them are economically illiterate; no economist would say them.
For example: “women are paid less because they don’t work as hard, and it’s the same with people of color”.
No economist would make that statement. That’s because wages are not tied to how hard one works. Wage is equal to the marginal product of labor.
zeke5123
Dec 23 2021 at 9:26am
If I was guessing, my guess is that Block was discussing the so called wage gap. He likely pointed out that one difference that might explain the wage gap is that women work less hours compared to men (at least that was true last I saw).
So, one thing we can take from that is that men receive in the aggregate more consideration for work compared to women and men tend to work more hours compared to women. If we just had those two facts, then it would seem there are two possible conjectures:
Women produce a much higher marginal product per hour of labor such that even though men work more men and women produce similar amounts of product and therefore the market paying women less is sexist
Men produce more from their labor compared to women because marginal product of labor is tied in part to hours of labor and therefore men receive more aggregate consideration.
The second seems much more reasonable.
I could see a student hearing that and believing that (i) women are a victim of the wage gap, and (ii) think Professor Block is blaming the “victim” by calling them lazy (i.e., hearing that women work less and therefore must be lazy) when I am sure Professor Block wouldn’t say they are lazy but instead that women are using their time differently (e.g., domestic activities).
Knut P. Heen
Dec 23 2021 at 9:53am
Unfortunately, I fear that some students interpret the marginal product theory of wages in that direction. That is, that it is sexist and racist because the lower average wage of these groups imply that their marginal productivity is lower. A weak student may interpret lower marginal productivity as “don’t work as hard”.
When I taught micro, I used to explain why the labor theory of value is wrong just to avoid this particular misunderstanding. Will I be able to sell the milk for a higher price if I carry it to the top of a mountain and back down before I sell it? No. But, I have worked hard for it.
Jon Murphy
Dec 23 2021 at 10:00am
That they do. And I’ve gotten the “racist/sexist” question in the past. Fortunately, my students were mature enough to ask for clarification. Too bad the same isn’t true about Layola.
David Henderson
Dec 23 2021 at 10:50am
It may well be true about Loyola too. I’ve heard great things in the past from and about Walter Block’s students. 3 students complaining because they failed to understand is not an indictment of Loyola students in general.
Jon Murphy
Dec 23 2021 at 11:38am
Yes, you are right. It was unfair of me to make my generalized comment
Mark Brady
Dec 23 2021 at 4:30pm
“When I taught micro, I used to explain why the labor theory of value is wrong just to avoid this particular misunderstanding. Will I be able to sell the milk for a higher price if I carry it to the top of a mountain and back down before I sell it? No. But, I have worked hard for it.”
In fairness to David Ricardo, that is not a fair characterization of what he meant by the labor theory of value. “The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not on the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour.” (Emphasis added.) It is not necessary to carry the milk up and down the mountain before you sell it. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm
Knut P. Heen
Dec 24 2021 at 7:35am
The labor theory of value can be found already in the Wealth of Nations. Is it really necessary to spend labor hours pasteurizing milk? Why not spend the time carrying the milk over a mountain instead? The difference is that pasteurization provides more utility to the consumer. But pasteurization is not necessary. We can drink milk directly from the cow.
Monte
Dec 23 2021 at 12:26pm
We can certainly argue that Prof. Block is controversial. Controversy used to be highly valued in the classroom as thought-provoking and entertaining. In today’s ultra-sensitive college environment, however, academicians who express these types of viewpoints are considered bigoted, insensitive and racist by both students and faculty. The Coddling of the American Mind does a fair job of identifying and characterizing this present danger.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 23 2021 at 12:28pm
The responses to my post are reflective of confirmation bias so I’ll refrain from posting anything other than this one final note. Professor Block sued the New York Times for libel based on the one paragraph in an otherwise lengthy story on Rand Paul that appeared in 2014. It appears that he lost the lawsuit.
zeke5123
Dec 23 2021 at 12:54pm
How is it confirmation bias? We pointed out charged language the provost used. Is there a different way to interpret “extremely disappointed?” Please tell us how that is looking for an answer as opposed to a natural reading of the email?
Also, re the NYT that is a non-sequitur and an ad hominem. Do better.
David Henderson
Dec 23 2021 at 1:54pm
I hadn’t heard the outcome of Walter’s suit against the NYT but I expected that outcome. And, for the record, I hoped he would lose. Defending Walter’s academic freedom and his employment contract doesn’t entail favoring limitations on the New York Times‘s very irresponsible use of its freedom of the press.
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 23 2021 at 3:06pm
“It appears that he lost the lawsuit”.
I’m not sure that’s true and it depends on what you consider “losing”. While the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the suit in 2014, the 5th Circuit reversed that decision. Per the New York Times, the case was settled in 2018 “in a non-monetary settlement”. As is normal in such cases, the terms of the settlement are probably subject to a non-disclosure agreement so I wouldn’t expect Block to comment on that here.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1042601/new-york-times-settles-libel-suit-over-slavery-quotes
David Henderson
Dec 23 2021 at 4:28pm
Thanks for clarifying. That explains why I never heard that he definitively lost.
Paul Geddes
Dec 24 2021 at 12:37am
Did you notice that after the court’s ruling that a number of Walter’s opeds appeared in the NYTimes?
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 24 2021 at 12:56am
That’s interesting and likely no coincidence.
Mark Brady
Dec 23 2021 at 6:38pm
I wish Walter Block had spelled Gandhi’s name correctly. 🙂
clort12
Dec 23 2021 at 9:20pm
It’s not surprising to find in these comments some support for the baseless accusations against Prof. Block, but it is a relief to find them in the minority.
I am disappointed that many commenters here have implied that these accusations, if accurate, would pose legitimate grounds for firing. I’d like to call that into question.
Would holding the view that “women work less hard” really be legitimate grounds for firing a tenured professor? What if that view aligns with reality?
From Prof. Block’s lectures I can recall no instance of him using using the term “less hard-working”, but I have heard him cite statistics showing that in some career types and strata, women put in less hours per week to their for-pay job than do men.
Block has suggested that one possible explanation might be that women, on average, are choosing to allocate more time and energy to family duties than are men. Regardless of whether empirically true or false, it does meet the criteria of a logical causative factor. It is logical because energy devoted to one activity necessarily reduces energy available to devote to others, and that is obvious to anyone but a socialist bent on categorically denying the reality of scarcity.
Anyone interested in Dr. Block’s actual views may download (or preferably, purchase) his 2010-2011 book, “The Case for Discrimination”. https://mises.org/library/case-discrimination
To those who aren’t, I ask that you just remember that economic outcomes are usually multi-causal; Walter Block is simply teaching his students to engage in the scientific method (as opposed to dogmatic) by encouraging them to take into account a range of explanations which could logically contribute to an observed outcome.
He’s doing his job. Let him.
David Henderson
Dec 24 2021 at 2:28pm
You wrote:
I’m not sure that commenters have implied that. Some may well have. Is it possible, though, that you’ve inferred that?
By the way, I don’t see these accusations, if accurate, as legitimate grounds for firing.
Joe Fondren
Dec 24 2021 at 1:35pm
Having received my Ph.D. from the hardware store (Post Hole Digger) probably renders me somewhat of an outlier here, while striving to not be a borderline out-and-out-liar, as I can’t help but suspect of Dr. Block’s accusers in this matter (And I said borderline); but when thinking of the wage gap, Clinical Psychologist Jordan Petersen’s viewpoint always comes to mind. Of course, there are exceptions, but:
Men are more likely to travel to get higher pay.
Men are more likely to work outside, in inclement weather.
Men are more likely to work in dangerous environments; like more than thirty feet off the ground.
Men tend to put a higher priority on overtime.
Women generally tend to work fewer (Not less) hours.
And, obviously, men are generally stronger, and very few get pregnant.
But the attribute/flaw that most people see but won’t mention, is that women generally are more agreeable. (And thank God for that. I mean, don’t they all sit on what makes the world go round?) In other words, women are much less likely to ask for/require/demand a raise in pay.
Men and women are different. There are things a man can do that a woman can’t do, or, at least, can’t do well, and vice versa. After spending hundreds of hours on loading docks as a long-haul trucker in the 1970s, I could most always tell if a man or woman was driving a forklift…just by listening to it. The women just never would fully catch on.
But probably most important, is that if a woman is producing more verified income for her employer than he/she/it/them/they is/are willing to pay her, and she is, therefore, worth more than she is being paid, then most likely some employer WILL pay her what she’s worth.
Now, anyone wanting to chew me up because of these opinions, better spit me out quit, cause I’m bitter. (And, of course, the pun is intended.) LOL
.
Van
Dec 24 2021 at 3:36pm
Because Walter has recorded all his classroom sessions it should be easy enough to find the “smoking gun” moment(s) where the alleged distasteful comments occurred. If the provost cannot produce those moments she should shut up and send Walter an apology, and kick the lying students out of school. My guess is the students in question are of the collectivist mindset and hate Walter because he is a freedom lover.
Treg
Dec 24 2021 at 4:08pm
As Dr. E Michael Jones has said of his own Catholic faith, its been taken over and subverted by Cultural Marxist Critical Theory and its ridiculous notions of right and wrong. Its a complete embarrassment to Catholicism and its a testimate to the success of about a dozen athiest-marxist-communist-pedophile-jews who came up with Critical Theory in the first place.
Perhaps Walter could learn a thing or two with an in-depth talk with Dr. E Michael Jones.
Paul Marks
Dec 24 2021 at 6:18pm
Claims that someone said various things – with no context, and not even dates and times when the words were supposed to have been said. For example, “slavery was not bad” could well be from “slavery was not bad – it was terrible”, or the words might not have been used at all.
And note the standard leftist (mis) use of Title IX – using it as excuse to persecute people for having dissenting opinions. A university where everyone has to be terrified that any word they say (or do NOT say) can be used as weapon to persecute them, is hardly “welcoming” – and taxpayers should not be forced to back student loans to such indoctrination centres.
Doug H
Dec 28 2021 at 3:46am
Libertarians are often misunderstood; I think largely for one or both of two reasons. One reason is the deep founding within economics, particularly microeconomics, with which Libertarians analyze. Libertarians are linked to Austrian Economics, which is largely the economics of individual autonomous actors within a large nexus of interrelated actions, causes and effects.
The other reason is that Libertarians are very precise in their analytical descriptions, bereft of emotional considerations and unmoved by political considerations. To understand what a Libertarian is saying requires like analytical precision and attention to detail, clear contextual understanding, recognition of irony, laced with critical thought and logic.
One who chooses to criticize an academic Libertarian using what that Libertarian has stated or written does so at one’s own peril. If the critic does not exercise precise analysis of what was stated, then that critic risks embarrassing self. This, of course, assumes that the critic has taken the time to establish that accusations made against the Libertarian are factual and accurate. To fail doing that homework invites a case of defamation, a serious peril indeed.
Occasionally, a campus leader who takes on the role of critic will not only fail to get both sides of an issue before making accusations but will choose to exponentiate the potential damage by laying the trap of virtue-signaling. For a campus leader, this is a worse trap than a bear trap, which upon engaging it results in painful leg damage. That is physical damage, which pales in comparison to the damage of significantly diminishing one’s credibility, trustworthiness, and moral authority. Legs heal.
Doug H
Dec 28 2021 at 1:33pm
Libertarians are often misunderstood; I think largely for one or both of two reasons. One reason is the deep founding within economics, particularly microeconomics, with which Libertarians analyze. Libertarians are linked to Austrian Economics, which is largely the economics of individual autonomous actors within a large nexus of interrelated actions, causes and effects.
The other reason is that Libertarians are very precise in their analytical descriptions, bereft of emotional considerations and unmoved by political considerations. To understand what a Libertarian is saying requires like analytical precision and attention to detail, clear contextual understanding, recognition of irony, laced with critical thought and logic.
One who chooses to criticize an academic Libertarian using what that Libertarian has stated or written does so at one’s own peril. If the critic does not exercise precise analysis of what was stated, then that critic risks embarrassing self. This, of course, assumes that the critic has taken the time to establish that accusations made against the Libertarian are factual and accurate. To fail doing that homework invites a case of defamation, a serious peril indeed.
Occasionally, a campus leader who takes on the role of critic will not only fail to get both sides of an issue before making accusations but will choose to exponentiate the potential damage by laying the trap of virtue-signaling. For a campus leader, this is a worse trap than a bear trap, which upon engaging it results in painful leg damage. That is physical damage, which pales in comparison to the damage of significantly diminishing one’s credibility, trustworthiness, and moral authority. Legs heal.
walter block
Dec 30 2021 at 5:37pm
I settled my lawsuit against the NYTimes favorably. To those who have done so, thanks for supporting me on this matter.
Comments are closed.