History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Palmer's malicious attacks on Hoppe are just ridiculous, as shown here. He is clueless and malicious. Listen or read Hoppe for yourself; certainly don't reject Hoppe based on the comments of Palmer, who either does not know what he is talking about, or who does (which is even worse).
Yes, Mr. Knight, the student who complained, has his blog. See here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/aquariusguy702/
I agree. I walk more on eggshells during lectures than I used too. I haven't used the N-word in a lecture in a long time, for example, even when talking about the history of Jim Crow and slavery.
I am no fan of much of Hoppe's work but, as you note, there is a larger issue here. If Hoppe is disciplined merely for saying something controversial (or even unproven), the end result will be to make higher education even more sanitized and "safe" than it is now. If a university education doesn't "offend" students at least some of the time, it is pretty worthless and we might as well find another career.
Pretty incredible, isn't it? And this guy got a Univeristy committee to agree with him.
Don't know if this has been posted here yet, but you can see the provost's letter to Hoppe here:
http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf
I certainly agree with all that's been said about the absolute silliness of requiring a peer-review standard for things one says in the classroom, but I also found the first sentence of the last paragraph interesting, as it alludes to Hoppe being "previously instructed regarding similar incidents." This is not the first time, it would seem.
As I said earlier, I think he's totally protected by academic freedom for what he said, and I also think it's not an absurd claim on its face. However, for just these reasons, I would have never included homosexuals in the list of those with short planning horizons. It's just asking for trouble and the point can be made effectively without making a comment that could so easily be misunderstood.
So far as I can tell, the article you addressed is by someone with a really absurd axe to grind. Anyone who would create a weblog entirely to attack Tom Palmer doesn't need to be taken seriously. They need professional help, or maybe just to get a life. Please...
I was not being sarcastic, and I do intend to listen to the lecture. This weekend has been very busy for me, though, and it will continue to be that way until Monday. At that time I will listen and attempt to evaluate it as fairly as I can.
http://tinyurl.com/3j2ot
Here is the relevant section of the lecture.
Thank you Mr. Kennedy!
Unfortunately, it is post-accusation.
There is nothing about gay people doing risky
things. If just focuses on the end of life.
Frankly, I think Hoppe's economics is weak
here. I believe he should distinguish between
contraints and preferences. That is, children
and criminals can't wait. Old people and gays
don't have many future years for which to provide.
Democratic politicians cannot save past the end
of their term of office.
I believe, however, this is the Rothbardian
approach to the matter. It involves the notion
that the phenomenon of interest is solely due
to time preference--and so everything about
saving and investment has to be discussed through
this lens. (That might be a bit too strong, but
close.)
Good God! Is anybody still using the term "politically correct" in a non-ironic sense, after the past decade or so?
I'm quite sure the above comment is sarcastic, in which case touche'!
The local weekly paper, Las Vegas Mercury, has an editorial: "Editor's Note: Free the Professors" by Geoff Schumacher (2/10/05) http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2005/MERC-Feb-10-Thu-2005/25818243.html
He says:
On the homefront
Veteran UNLV economics professor Hans Herman Hoppe is under fire for a classroom comment about homosexuals. In a money and banking course last year, Hoppe noted that certain demographic groups are more likely to plan for the future than others. For example, the very old and the very young don't tend to plan for the future, while couples with children are more likely to plan than those who do not.
In this context, he said homosexuals tend to plan less than heterosexuals, a product, perhaps, of tending not to have children and to live riskier lifestyles. No students objected to the comment in class, but a student later filed a complaint.
Rather than defend the professor's freedom of speech, the university at first decided to hand Hoppe a letter of reprimand and dock his pay. When Hoppe's dean objected, the university changed its punishment to a letter of reprimand and no pay raise. Nonplussed, Hoppe turned to the ACLU, which has taken up his free speech fight. "I have done absolutely nothing wrong," Hoppe told the Review-Journal.
Say it loud
Free speech is the most important constitutional right we have. Its enduring simplicity and strength engender envy the world over. I shudder to imagine what American life would be like without the degree of free speech we generally enjoy.
Obviously, most of us at one time or another are compelled to hold our tongues. In the private sector, frequently, businesses expect employees to keep their political views to themselves. And as my wife wisely points out, we wouldn't be too happy if elementary schoolteachers were force-feeding extreme viewpoints to impressionable youngsters. But higher education is different. Ward Churchill and Hans Hoppe are classic examples of individuals who should be able to express their views--no matter how controversial--without fear of reprisal. After all, free speech is the essence of what "tenure" means.
I will absolutely listen to the lecture, although unfortunately I don't have an hour to spend on it at the moment.
As to whether Hoppe is a great intellectual, what I've seen at Tom Palmer's site leaves me with considerable doubts:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014584.php
The Las Vegas Sun, the other major newspaper in the Las Vegas area (and strongly in favor of a mixed economy) had an article on 2/8/05 on the matter by Christina Littlefield: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/feb/08/518257103.html?Hoppe
The writer mentions the "internet campaign" in support of Hoppe.
You know, it just doesn't seem like too much to ask to suggest that anyone who is weighing in on this at least listen to an hour-long lecture. I know this is the age when all thought has to fit within a blog comment or be summed up in a pithy quotation, and we are supposed to either approve or condemn someone based on a little more than a sentence that appears in an RSS feed. But because we are talking here about the life and career of a truly great intellectual, it doesn't seem to be too much of an imposition to go to extra mile here. As for Hoppe's detractors, they are under special moral obligation to listen to this lecture, which is systematic, thorough, analytic, calm, and impressively brilliant in every way. The blogs that have trashed this man should have the courage to link to it as well. Clearly, this man is a remarkable teacher. But don't take my word for it: click here and set aside the blogs, news aggs, and email for 60 minutes and listen. The mind at work here is marvel.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-11-Fri-2005/news/25847462.html
K.C. Howard of the Las Vegas Review-Journal today, in "Professor, UNLV at odds over lecture complaint," says:
UNLV Professor Hans Hoppe rejected a peace offering Thursday from university administrators who had sought to penalize him for a controversial statement he made about homosexuals in a class lecture last year.
University officials said in a statement Thursday that after investigating the matter, they had reached "a fair conclusion for all parties involved."
But Hoppe, a tenured professor, said he does not consider the matter resolved and is prepared to seek vindication in court.
In a March lecture on economic planning, Hoppe told his money and banking class that homosexuals do not typically plan for the future. The remark prompted a student to lodge an informal complaint against Hoppe.
The incident has stirred debate over academic freedom versus academic responsibility and whether advocacy, opinions and theories have a place at the lectern.
"The reputation of the university is dramatically soiled, I would say, and I thought they would realize this and give in," Hoppe said. "I want an apology from them that they mistreated me, that they gave in to a brat who should have been told to grow up."
Hoppe also wants a letter that university officials placed in his personnel file Wednesday removed.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, who is representing Hoppe, released to the media a copy of the "nondisciplinary" letter written by Ray Alden, executive vice president and provost.
In it, Alden said Hoppe's conduct violates "standards of scholarship and instruction responsibility, as well as the accuracy obligation" established by the university system. Peer-reviewed academic literature did not support Hoppe's statements about homosexuals, Alden added. And Hoppe's alleged facts created a discriminatory environment because they were not qualified as opinions, theories or opened for debate, Alden wrote.
"That sort of attitude or policy cannot help but have a chilling effect on the speech of all professors," said Gary Peck, the ACLU of Nevada's executive director.
Hoppe, 55, a conservative libertarian economist with almost 20 years experience at UNLV, gave the lecture to about 30 undergraduates. He was describing groups that generally plan for the future and those that do not.
Very young and very old people tend not to plan for the future, he said. And couples with children tend to plan more than couples without.
Another example Hoppe gave was homosexuals, who, he said, tend to plan less for the future than heterosexuals.
Further illustrating his theory on Thursday, Hoppe said, "They (homosexuals), of course, typically do not have children, so accordingly they also have a shorter planning horizon than adults with children."
Michael Knight, the student who filed the complaint against Hoppe, said Thursday that he hoped the university's actions would deter the professor from making similar statements again.
Knight said that as a graduating senior seeking a degree in economics, he had needed to take the course and had to pay to hear such unsubstantiated opinions.
"He was stereotyping homosexuals -- we don't have any family values; we don't know how to manage our money; we basically just blow all our money immediately -- that was my take on it," said Knight, who is gay. "When the door closes and the lecture began, he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible."
Hoppe said he clarified to the class a week later that he was making generalizations and did not mean to offend anyone. That led Knight to believe Hoppe did not take the matter seriously.
"He really didn't care about the situation at all and the fact that I felt very uncomfortable with what happened," Knight said.
Knight, who graduated in August and now lives in Seattle, said if Hoppe had prompted a classroom discussion and apologized, he would not have complained.
Hoppe, who said the theory has backing from economists worldwide, said a student always can raise a hand and start a debate.
"I don't know of any single professor who ever qualified all of his statements saying, 'This is my opinion; this is a well-established fact,' " Hoppe said. "You would never be able to give any lecture whatsoever."
The ACLU has threatened to take the matter to court unless the institution removes any reference to the controversy from his file.
A university grievance committee recommended Hoppe be docked a week's pay. But Alden's letter did not outline financial penalties, Hoppe said.
University officials declined to comment on the specifics of their resolution. But Richard Linstrom, UNLV chief counsel, said, "His status at the university is unchanged."
UNLV Student Body President, Henry Schuck, said students want professors to stick to the facts in class.
"I don't think it's possible to check your beliefs at the door, but to represent those as your beliefs is critical," he said. "I view what is said in the classroom as factual stuff, so to come out of there with things that aren't factual, it's a disservice to students."
In a statement, university spokeswoman Hilarie Grey said UNLV is committed to academic freedom and investigating discrimination. But, she said, with academic freedom comes academic responsibility.
"The purpose of keeping these proceedings confidential is to protect both the complainant and the faculty member involved," Grey said. "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."
It sure would be nice if someone would
transcribe the relevant portions.
FrontPageMag has a story on the Attack on Hoppe by Richard Lake:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16929
which was mentioned on the LewRockwell.com Blog (Thanks, Stephen Carson, for this!)
Just Ken
One of the disturbing things to me about the discussion of lectures, politically correct or otherwise, at UNLV seems to be the assemption that factual lectures with proven data is the only way to teach.
I think Socrates would have rejected that notion. The idea of a dialogue is really quite different from a lecture, and one might toss out a deliberate false idea in order to begin such a discussion.
Would a politically correct student then leap up and say, "Ah ha, now I've got you and will report you."
So university teaching has come to this sad state.
Too bad!
Here is the lecture in question, as delivered at the Mises University. Here are the dangerous thoughts that this student says should not be heard. This lecture alone is enough to refute every smear you have ever heard. Listen and make a judgement.