Here’s the email I got back from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas in response to my letter in defense of the academic freedom of a very odd professor:
In response to recent media reports regarding the issue of academic freedom on the UNLV campus — it is important to understand that these accounts are incomplete, and may have resulted in distorted impressions of what has actually transpired. Complaints by members of the university community regarding classroom environment may result in confidential personnel proceedings. The purpose of keeping these proceedings confidential is to protect both the complainant and the faculty member involved. It is unfair for the news media and others who may have read incomplete accounts of this situation to judge the university’s intentions and values regarding this matter.
UNLV was following established procedures in this review process, which included a thorough investigation of all facts in the matter, as well as faculty and student review. In this particular case, the faculty member chose to release his name and interpretation of certain selected events to the public. In order to protect the rights of the faculty member and the complainant, as well as the integrity of the process, the university simply cannot disclose the facts surrounding this incident.
UNLV is deeply committed to upholding the tenets of academic freedom, and is equally committed to investigating reports of discrimination. It is important to note that with academic freedom comes accountability, both to ensure accuracy in instruction and to avoid creating a discriminatory environment. The university has seen this process through to a fair conclusion for all parties involved.
The faculty member continues as a Professor of Economics in the College of Business at UNLV.
I don’t know if that is the last word on the subject, or not.
Tom:
It is not over. The administrators are desperately trying to spin this but they are still on the warpath against academic freedom.
Take a look at this memo yesterday from the provost.
Pretty scary stuff.
Here is the link:
http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf
Hoppe will be on O’Reilly next Thursday–this is great! The Austrian school will get some national exposure! Yaayyyy!
And libertarianism! Libertarianism and Austrianism will get some great exposure on national TV by one of its preeminent proponents! Yaayyyy!
As this wonderful Hoppe lecture on time preference demonstrates. Truly, one of the finest libertarians of our time.
Hoppe Speaks On The Controversy
Jeff Tucker points out an MP3 recording of what appears to be more or less a version Hoppe’s standard lecture on Time Preference, the lecture upon which the present controversy is based. Upon listening to the lecture I found that it contains Hoppe sp…
I note that the doc linked above says Hoppe has been notified in writing before for similar incidents. That’s new.
On my site I have aduio clips of Hoppe culled from his Time Preference lecture on Mises.org. He responds to the charges and characterizes his original remarks.
Ooops, here is the link to the clips and transcript of Hoppe’s remarks:
http://tinyurl.com/3j2ot
Just in response to Mr. Kinsella’s childish outbursts, I must say that it is at least a matter of dispute whether Hoppe is recognizably a libertarian (since he holds the, um, novel view that the U.S. government should act as the owner of all the land in the U.S. and determine who should be allowed to be my guest in my home) and even whether he is recognizably an economist.
Moreover, having such an odd and odious character on television to defend himself from charges of bigotry is hardly an occasion to showcase either libertarian views or the tradition of inquiry associated with the “Austrian school” of Menger, Boehm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, and so on. Had Hoppe been charged with armed assault, treason, or sexual harassment (to take three things with which he has not, to my knowledge, been charged) and gone on television, one supposes that Mr. Kinsella would be excited that he would be on TV.
Kinsella,
Were you aware that Hoppe had previously been instructed in writing by UNLV regarding similar incidents?
Because everything Hoppe has said so far would lead one to believe that there had not been any similar incidents.
Hoppe. Is. Going. To. Be. On. Television.
And the country will associate him, a right communitarian/anarcho-capitalist from the Mises “Austrian” crowd, with libertarianism. I don’t know what’s more terrifying, the fact that the UNLV administration is spinning this case almost as housekeeping matter, or that Hoppe will be on television for the world to see and associate with us.
And of course the Rockwellites are up in arms, praising their comrade.
Brian-
I know, it’ll be about as bad for us as people such as (sometimes) Rep. Ron Paul and McVeigh to represent us (check this liberal site http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RJPosH5agHMJ:www.rackjite.com/9looney.htm+%22ron+paul%22+rackjite+racist&hl=en, and who still see the old left-right 2-D spectrum.
Tom,
Under your link “nutty professor”, you make the following claim about Hoppe’s competence in economics: “It’s made worse by the fact that he’s defrauded the taxpayers, to boot, as his knowledge of economics is as deep as is my knowledge of Sanskrit.”
When made by most people, this would be an easily interpretable statement, but the problem, Tom, is that you’re a polymath, and speak many languages. Please clarify that Sanskrit is not one of them.
Thanks,
RL
My mistake…the link was “a very odd professor”. Perhaps I’m confusing Hoppe with Jerry Lewis…
RL
I don’t find the letter very frightening.
While the requirement that all statements of
fact be based upon peer reviewed research
appears a bit extreme, Hoppe’s example should
fit under the heading of “theory.” That is,
an if-then statement.
That is, I don’t know that anyone has done
much empirical research on gay time horizons,
time preference, or saving rates. But standard
economic theory about these things would imply
Hoppe’s claims, though based upon assumptions
about gay people. People care about their children and leave bequests, gay people tend not
to have children. This would imply that gay people save less.
Apparently, some folks have trouble with the
claim about homosexuals and risky behavior.
Just yesterday, some U.S. government agency
suggested that everyone be regularly tested
for aids. According to the story, they said
that only “high risk groups” like gay people
had been recommended for regular testing
before.
Now, I don’t know whether there is peer reviewed
research about high risk activity. But I
don’t believe that taking that sort of conventional wisdom as an assuption is wrong.
Gay people are more likely to contract a fatal
disease, so the theory implies they would be
less likely to save.
I have wondered if some commenters haven’t took
this in a different way–gay people are less
concerned about the future, and so they take
high risks. I interpreted it the opposite
way. Because they are more likely to die
before old age, gay people save less.
Now, I often say that “most economists beleive”
or “it is my opinion” in the course of my lectures. I also say “some economists think”
and when appropriate add “and I agree.” I
find it natural, especially in contrast with
running through what I think is true without
communicating where my views are consensus,
common, rare, or idiosyncratic.
Of course, I sometimes make wrong statements as
if they are true. Then I take them back after
discussion. Unfortunately, the less bright and
less attentive students sometimes only catch the
bombastic claim. Some students believe
I am a communist!
Mr. Palmer, you are so charmingly predictable. Gosh, I wonder why people would not treat all these juvenile temper tantrums of you and yours as if they are serious and mature?
Thank goodness for the Internet and Mises.org http://www.mises.org and HansHoppe.com http://www.hanshoppe.com . Then, people can simply read Hoppe’s material (in English or at least SIXTEEN other languages), or listent to various lectures, including this one: http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003140.asp . I have utmost confidence that people who simply decide for themselves the merit of Hoppe’s libertarian and scholarly abilities will come to a conclusion opposite that of the self-blinded Mr. Palmer.
Kennedy, why are you such a strange, annoying gadfly? Just curious.
Palmer’s ridiculous, repeated distortions about Hoppe are debunked here: http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/2005/02/more_palmer_hop.html
It’s amusing to see Stephan Kinsella accuse other people of throwing “juvenile temper tantrums”.
Well, anyone who wants to visit with Mr. Kinsella is certainly welcome to do so.
But let’s move on to issues of scholarship. Tom DiLorenzo posted a revealing note on lewrockwell.com (http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007399.html#more ) in defense of Hoppe that relies on utterly discredited pseudo-scholarship. According to DiLorenzo,
“One example [of ‘peer reviewed research’ to support Professor Hoppe’s claim] is an artcle in Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying (vol. 29, 1994)which describes itself as ‘a refereed journal that draws significant contributions from the fields of psychology, sociology, medicine, anthropoligy, law, education, history, and literature.'” The essay in question, “The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic,” by Paul Cameron, William Playfair, and Stephen Wellum has been so thoroughly discredited that it’s . …. well, now that I come to think about it in the context of the errors that mar DiLorenzo’s writing generally, it’s *not* a wonder that he jumped to cite it. The “statistical evidence” that was the foundation for the claim that “the average lifespan for male homosexuals without AIDS is 42” was drawn from counting death dates and causes of deaths reported in the obituaries published in urban free-distribution gay-oriented papers. Such obituaries, unsurprisingly, are not reliable guides to the longevity of gay people as a whole. (A refutation of the pseudo-science in the essay that DiLorenzo found so impressive can be found in Walter Olson’s essay: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2098 ; see also Mark E. Pietrzyk’s essay from The New Republic http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/pietrzyk/pietrzyk53.html ). So much for DiLorenzo’s foray into “scholarship” to support Hoppe’s a priori conclusions about how the world ought to be.
Of course, one could note that at least DiLorenzo looks around for fraudulent “research” to support his conclusions (although even there, as the reviews of his book on Lincoln show, he bolloxes that up, too). Hoppe wouldn’t even bother to do that.
Better to trust reviews than just read the book, eh, Palmer? Or the reviews that support your preconceptiosn, anyway.
Mr. Palmer wrote, “Of course, one could note that at least DiLorenzo looks around for fraudulent “research” to support his conclusions (although even there, as the reviews of his book on Lincoln show, he bolloxes that up, too). Hoppe wouldn’t even bother to do that.”
Thanks for defending Hoppe, Mr. Palmer. I agree with you, he would not look around for fraudulent research to support his conclusions (not that DiLorenzo would do that … but I understand–you live in DC… and all your international friends who visit want to see the Lincoln Memorial… and it’s just so … BIG… and it’s there… and his eyes are so sad and paternal… and you just could not tell your friends he was just a mass-murdering tyrannical fraud, could you… no, they might =gasp= accuse you of racism… can’t have that… easier to accept our national myths as fact and move on… )
But while you are defending Hoppe, could you do me a favor? Some Swedish libertarians apparently got the zany notion that Hoppe is a Moonie. I’m sure even you would not accuse him of that.
Mr. Palmer, speaking of bigotry–I’m just curious. Have you ever used the N-word? Oh hell, I’ll be generous. Since you turned 25. Have you ever use the N-word?
I’ll bet you’ve at least used the word “bigger”. Many times. And that’s very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism. Sure, almost everyone says “bigger” sometimes. But just because everone does it does not mean it’s justified.
Shame on you. Whether the N-word, or its close-cousin, “bigger”–shame, shame, shame.
I have to say that the quality of Mr. Kinsella’s comments has declined dramatically, which is why I’m uninviting him to comment on my site. Interesting remarks, strong rebuttals, even denunciations (including claims that I’m an idiot, a moron, etc.) are welcome. But the above remarks — notably the last — are simply too odd to justify taking up any more space. I can’t quite figure out what he’s getting at and the only likely possibilities strike me as quite ugly. So, adiÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?³s, Mr. Kinsella.
P.S. Just in case Mr. Kinsella might claim that I have evaded his strange question, I admit that I use the term “bigger” when appropriate. I don’t recall using the word “nigger,” other than in a quotation of someone else, for all those years. Had I used such a nasty word as a term of hatred or abuse, I would be ashamed. I certainly don’t recall having done so. What is behind the question, other than a suggestion that “bigger” and “nigger” are equally unobjectionable, is a mystery to me. What a very strange man Mr. Kinsella is. Lew Rockwell and Hans-Hermann Hoppe could not ask for a more appropriate lieutenant.
ADDENDUM(B): On the catty little website about me that antiwar.com and Mr. Kinsella have set up, Mr. Kinsella indicates that being booted as a commentator was not unanticipated. He writes:
Well, to take up Ross Levatter’s post —
As an amateur Sanskritist, I regret that Dr. Palmer is not fluent in this immensely rich language, because harrowing texts such as The Laws of Manu need a ready antidote of classical liberalism in a shared tongue (preferably in the lean anushtubh meter but sutras or just plain gadya will do). The great 19th century Sanskrit lexicographer Sir M. Monier-Williams suggests “svatantrata” as a synonym for “liberty.” Literally it means “self-dependentness” where “dependent” has a strong cultural connotation of “ownership.” As good a place to start as any, I think . . . .
As for Hoppe —
Whatever his merits as an economist, a scholar, or an academic, his prose is a model of clarity. What this means is that someone like me, a relatively recent convert to libertarian thought, can take up a work such as “On Conservatism and Libertarianism” and arrive at our own conclusions about what is being said there, entirely free of the qualifying remarks of his fans or his detractors. This is in fact what I did, and to put it perhaps less precisely than I should: that piece gave me the creeps. And so did Antiwar.com when I wandered over to it after reading the Murray Rothbard biography. All of this, mind you, occurred before I was made aware of Dr. Palmer’s dissent by the bloggers on Lew Rockwell’s website, who helpfully provided a link (which I’ve kept bookmarked ever since). As far as I’m concerned, if persistent criticism of the Rockwellians is Dr. Palmer’s hobby-horse, then it is one that I’d prefer he continue to ride, if merely for a regular reminder that libertarianism is not the crazy-eyed caricature that it seems to have become in some quarters.
Thanks to The Cheerful Schopenhauerian for reminding me of Ross Levatter’s tongue-in-cheek query. Unsurprisingly, I don’t read Sanskrit….but I have read a fair amount of The Laws of Manu and the Arthashastra. I admire someone who would take up the study.
But to be more direct, Hoppe’s grasp of economics is … weak. An inquiry into how he was hired in the first place would make more sense than an inquiry into the comments he made in class.
“The Cheerful Schopenhauerian”?
Do I sense a certain attraction to paradox?
Dr. Palmer-
Disregarding his bizarre political views, could you please provide an example of how “Hoppe’s grasp of economics is … weak?”
Thanks.
TGP clarifies:
” Unsurprisingly, I don’t read Sanskrit….but I have read a fair amount of The Laws of Manu and the Arthashastra.”
Well, yes, of course…no doubt we’ve all read The Laws of Manu and the Arthashastra…that’s fairly basic. I just wanted to clarify you’re not fluent in Sanskrit. This makes your position on Hoppe’s abilities in economics more clear. 🙂
BTW, would a scholar who devoted himself to studying the Laws of Manu simple be a ManuLaw Laborer?
While I do not want to join the small cadre of people accusing Mr. Palmer of having an axe to grind on Mr. Hoppe, nor deride him for making this a hobby-horse issue–in part because I strongly trust Mr. Palmer’s judgments and in part because it is, after all, HIS blog, the following question arises:
While we’re having this lively discussion of HHH and academic freedom, the rest of the country is having a similar discussion about a Dr. Ward Churchill, who’s made claims of interest about 9/11. Since this blog devotes at least part of its energies at covering/commenting on political controversies of the day, is it not interesting that this topic has no coverage here? I’m not trying to direct Tom to cover any issue that, for whatever reason, doesn’t resonate with him, but this tension between what this blog and the rest of the country see as the threat to academic freedom struck me as interesting…
Very quick responses to the issues raised by Adam and by Ross, before I get back to preparing a presentation for later this week on heroism and liberty:
Regarding Hoppe’s grasp of economics as a science, Adam might want to look into the issues raised by these two documents:
The first is a bizarre misstatement of the famous “Coase Theorem,” a misstatement copied from Murray Rothbard’s misreading of Coase many years ago. Read Coase’s “The Nature of Social Cost” and then read Hoppe’s absurd parody of an interpretation
(http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/hoppe_chicago_diversions.pdf )
(See http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php for an account of Hoppe’s response to a challenge to show where Coase had argued “that courts assign property rights to contesting parties in such a way that ‘wealth’ or the ‘value of production’ is maximized.”)
The second is the remarkable claim that all unemployment in a free market economy is voluntary, since, after all, you could always lower your price (say, to $.01 per hour) and get a job, a claim that neatly ignores such features as search costs, uncertainty, imperfect knowledge, etc.:
http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/002545.asp . Walter Block, in a rave review ( http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Blockarticles/economicsofethics.htm ) of Hoppe’s work, put it thusly:
“Naturally, our author employs praxeology to this end, not the competing Friedmanesque positivist view predicated upon falsifiability. He unerringly places his finger on the core fallacy, that there cannot logically be any such thing as voluntary unemployment in the free society. The Keynesian failure to see this is due to a basic confusion: the man who has no job is obviously asking for a wage higher than that at which his productivity is appraised by others. Let him but lower his expectations to a great enough degree, and he will soon find himself employed.”
Not, I am afraid, very impressive economic analysis.
Ross has also raised a good question. I do indeed oppose using the evil claims in his published writings to dismiss Ward Churchill from his job. I also think that it’s more than a bit cowardly to disinvite him because of the anticipation of heckling. Churchill already has plenty of defenders, but few argue that he should be defended on the grounds that his views are just obviously right and proper. (What should be looked into is how such an unscholarly character could have been hired and promoted in the first place.) What was different in the Hoppe case is that many of his defenders were insisting that he hadn’t ever said anything offensive; I know that that’s not true, but I also believe that it’s irrelevant to whether he should be disciplined by his employer, a state university. It’s important to keep two points distinct:
1. It does not follow that because you’re a bigot you should lose your job at a state university.
And
2. It does not follow that if you should not lose your job at a state university, you are not a bigot.
But, yes, I also support the contractual rights of Ward Churchill, who has vigorously defended the murder of people who worked in the World Trade Center, of Arthur Butz, the professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University who spends a great deal of his (off-the-job-time) denying the holocaust, and of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who has made fairly clear his hateful views toward the members of a variety of groups.
This claim about no voluntary unemployment. Is it widespread and persistent unemployment or unemployment at any particular moment?
I’m rushing to get to the airport, but I can say that the claim was categorical in nature, and did not make the kind of significant distinction that LB is making. You can find it in the essay that he included in a book edited by Mark Skousen, and which Skousen — as editor — wanted to have either rewritten or dropped, until he was threatened with legal action by Lew Rockwell, so he merely distanced himself from the essay in the introduction to the volume. Gotta run.
Mr. Palmer,
Since I’ve heard about this whole Hoppe hoopla, I’ve asked every gay person I’ve come into contact with if they found this offensive. So far, everyone has reacted reasonably; some, while not necessarily agreeing with Prof. Hoppe’s point, still don’t find it offensive. I posted Prof. Hoppe’s lecture to numerous gay communities on LiveJournal, and on those that responded, almost everyone responded reasonably as well. In fact, the only person who was upset by it was John T. Kennedy (from No-Treason.com), who brought up the tripe that Prof. Hoppe mentions homosexuals along with criminals as people who have higher time-preferences, thus that he’s making some kind of moral condemnation (he also mentions children and the very elderly: hardly means he’s condemning them).
It appears that yourself and Mr. Knight are the only ones who find such offensive. It certainly wasn’t discriminatory (as Mr. Knight claims), and it certainly wasn’t bigotted.
Despite all of the ranting by yourself and others about how much of a bigot Prof. Hoppe is, I haven’t seen one solid piece of evidence for that assertion, and it runs contradictory to my personal experience with Prof. Hoppe. All I see is hearsay, quotes out of context, and non-sequitars (like J.T. Kennedy’s argument).
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
PS: The claim that Prof. Hoppe isn’t libertarian or isn’t an economist is proposterous.
Mr. Heinrich demonstrates the danger of assuming that people follow complex threads. (No, that’s not intended as an insult. The thread is complex.)
Here is my initial comment about Mr. Hoppe at http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?permalink=1&id=52531#52531 :
Mr. Palmer,
Trying to answer as concisely as I can,
1. My main point was against the argument that Prof. Hoppe is a bigot. I haven’t seen any evidence for this. The alleged quote — that he said you’re nothing but an ambassador of homosexuality — is hearsay, and I do not take it as evidence. Put 20 people in a circle, and have the first person say to the second “I saw a mean-looking dog”, and by the time it goes around the circle and gets back to that person, the statement is “So and so saw a huge fire-breathing dragon!” Even if that was exactly what Prof. Hoppe said, I hardly see it as evidence of bigotry; we have no context, we do not know in what way he would have said it, etc. I think Mr. Kinsella’s little court-room skit illustrates this point very well.
2. In regards to you defending Prof. Hoppe’s right to say what he said, even though you dislike him, that is commendable. However, in regards to your criticism of it — primary vs. secondary causes — I don’t think that’s necessarily a real fault. Proximal vs. ultimate causes can be taken a long way. You can go on explaining things backwards until you get to the level of the subatomic.
3. In any event, I think it is true that there is something obvious about homosexuality that makes homosexuals less likely to have children. Namely, that a person who is homosexual is less likely to have sex with a member of the opposite sex than is a heterosexual. This obviously means they’re less likely to have children. We can get into a definitional issue here: What does it mean to be homosexual, heterosexual? Psychologically, a good definition may be which sex one is attracted to. Praxeologically, a different definition may be in order: which sex one has sexual relations with (this is because praxeology is concerned with actions, not the internal mental state of people).
4. Regarding Prof. Hoppe’s quote on the chapter on conservatism, I don’t see how this makes him a bigot. He is specifically addressing conservatives. He also makes several notes that make explicit the libertarian nature, and limits. Firstly, in a footnote, he says there could be a huge variety of varying communities, with differing levels of discrimination, and different standards for what they deem acceptable. He also notes that he thinks, even in the Conservative libertarian community he’s describing, private behaviour would be the business of the individual. He notes, however, that he thinks there would be limits to what communities could allow if they were to be successful; but these are to be determined in practical experience.
5. Prof. Block has criticized Prof. Hoppe on his argument that libertarians should embrace conservatism, and argues for plum-line libertarianism. However, Prof. Block still doesn’t think that Prof. Hoppe somehow isn’t a libertarian. Likewise for Block’s criticisms of Hoppe on immigration.
6. Prof. Hoppe doesn’t want the gov’t to act as the owner of all public land. Ideally, he’d like to see all public property eliminated and privatized. However, lacking that, he is making a libertarian argument that since the net tax-payers are being stolen from to produce/shape/maintain that land, we should try to treat it as they (most likely) would. Perhaps a refining idea on that would be to allow a tax-weighted vote for what the policy is. Those who are the biggest net tax-payers have the most say in the vote.
7. Regarding Prof. Hoppe’s a prioriism, ceteris paribus statements cannot be proven nor disproven by empirical observations. It follows logically that homosexuals will tend to have less chidlren, and thus various ceteris paribus conclusions (in so far as they tend to have less children) follow. Now, counter-vailing factors may over-ride these ceteris paribus considerations, and that’s what we can look at empirically. Regarding the Coase theorum, I don’t think Prof. Hoppe’s mis-stated it anymroe than Prof. Block has in his long-standing debate on the Coase theorum (see his publications page).
Mr. Palmer,
Found your blog after Googling for Hoppe, who recently gave a lecture here in the Netherlands. I thought his ideas were scary and very authoritarian/anti-liberty. And it seems you are one of his only critics from a libertarian point of view.
On a personal note: you are by far the most attractive man in academia, and probably one of the smartest too. Alas, I can’t say that of some of your ‘libertarian’ friends, who expose their bigotry by personally attacking you.