Hoppeing Mad

Controversial Austro-libertarian scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe (he developed the "argumentation ethic" defense of libertarianism, which claims that the very act of engaging in debate with another person implies acceptance of self-ownership and homesteading of property, making denying same an act of illegitimate self-contradiction), a tenured economics professor at University of Nevada-Las Vegas, is under fire for making references to the idea that homosexuals as a group might tend to have higher time preferences, and thus plan less for the future, than other groups. A student filed a formal complaint; the University wants to reprimand Hoppe and require him to give up his next scheduled pay increase.

The ACLU is on Hoppe's side. This Las Vegas Review-Journal article sums up what's happened pretty well; many of Hoppe's friends at the Mises Institute blog have been publically posting the letters of protest they've been sending to UNLV President Carol C. Harter.

Comments

[Gimme Back My Dog]

Whenever people engage in argumentation, they implicitly agree to a set of norms. For example, each participant implicitly agrees to try to persuade the other(s) through peaceful methods.

This guy never got in an argument with my wife.

[Gwyn Thomas]

I've nothing against libertarian academics working at State institutions,but if you take their money,sooner or later you'll have to jump through their hoops on command.I'll bet he's glad now he's got tenure,and "owns" his job,free from competition.

[Franklin Harris]

Actually, I'll go along with Hoppe's "argumentation ethic" just that far. It's when he tries to flesh it out that his case falls apart.

[SR]

Uh, Gwyn, tenure exists at most private universities as well. It's a contractual right, as far as I'm aware, i.e., no free market problem.

[Thomas Ware]

So much for the exersise of First Amendment rights, aeh?

[whippingPost]

Gimme Back My Dog at February 8, 2005 01:04 PM
...each participant implicitly agrees to try to persuade the other(s) through peaceful methods.
This guy never got in an argument with my wife.

one of the most comforting things in life to know; your not alone.

lol

[KipEsquire]

You're significantly underreporting the incident (e.g., he stated that gays tend to engage in "high-risk behavior" -- and I don't think he meant snowboarding).

The real issue is here is spewing out generalities and stereotypes without a shred of empirical data to back them up -- since when is that part of the "Austrian tradition"?

As I blogged on the subject:

"Academic freedom" does not include the freedom to lie or to "make stuff up." If you want to be politically (sociologically?) incorrect in the spirit of Charles Murray, then be my guest and more power to you. But you better damn well have some numbers to back it up. Otherwise you're just another bigot.

[Gwyn Thomas]

Hiring Fat Tony's hard-to-place nephew as some sort of "business agent" is very common here in Jersey,and is "contractual" as well.Tenure is what teachers did in the pre-union era to limit market entry.I don't know who thought it would be a good idea to keep on older teachers who have little incentive to do more than the minimum over younger,cheaper workers,but I'm betting it wasn't an employer.

[Evan Williams]

he stated that gays tend to engage in "high-risk behavior" -- and I don't think he meant snowboarding.

By "high-risk behavior", I am assuming he was referring to promiscuity. Perhaps I'm way, way off here, but, hasn't it been shown, via numerous studies, that homosexuals have a higher general rate of promiscuity than heterosexuals? If so, then that statement is logically correct. Now, one could make the argument that, by "high-risk behavior", Hans meant "morally risky". If this is indeed the case, then, while the statement itself would not be incorrect (depending on your morals), it would not have any relevance to a discussion of long-term economic planning. The question is, what did he mean by "high-risk behavior"? Having read some of Hoppe's work, I would posit that he intended the former definition, rather than the latter. Do you disagree?

The real issue is here is spewing out generalities and stereotypes without a shred of empirical data to back them up -- since when is that part of the "Austrian tradition"?

I went over this at Mises.org. First, explain to me what "stereotypes" he was "spewing". Next, there is nothing wrong, especially in an economics class, with generalities (so long as they are not indelibly wrong, as you note). But, take it a step further:

Speaking in the abstract, take 1 truth:

X) Those without children tend to save less than those with children.

Then, take another truth:

Y) Homosexuals tend to have less children than heterosexuals.

Then, logically speaking, disregarding any peripheral offsetting externalities, one could deduce the following:

If X is positive, and Y is positive, then, generally speaking, homosexuals would tend to save less, since they are less likely to have children.

Now, unless you can produce observational and evaluational evidence to the contrary, then, the only merits that can be debated are those of the logical equation. Do you have a link to study that proves that his logical equation is either wrong or right? I personally could find none.

So, then, what should Professor Hoppe have done? Prior to making the statement, go out and conduct studies that take into account all the peripheral offsetting externalities? Or can one no longer make an abstract logical deduction without hard, real-world evaluations of such?

There is quite a difference between "spewing out generalities and stereotypes without a shred of empirical data to back them up" and "stating logical deductions, absent empirical data to prove or disprove that the theory holds up in real life". Prior to proving the assertion correct, this is commonly known as a "hypothesis". I would hope that you could tell the difference.

This is the same fate that befell Larry Summers @ UCB.

[mtc]

I always thought gay men were more "promiscuous" because MEN are more promiscuous and don't take nearly as much convincing and bullshit as women do. I mean, if most women wanted to have sex as much and as often and as no-strings-attached as I do, I think I'd be having a lot more sex then I currently am.

Then again maybe I just don't hang around the right kind of women.

[parse]

From Evan Williams: Perhaps I'm way, way off here, but, hasn't it been shown, via numerous studies, that homosexuals have a higher general rate of promiscuity than heterosexuals?

I think you may be way off. What do you know about the rate of promiscuity among lesbians? The subject of the lecture was evidently economic planning for the future. To use a generalization about homosexuals in this context suggests that sexual orientation is a more salient characteristic in analyzing this (and in predicting "living riskier lifestyles") than gender is. You'd have to do a lot to convince me that lesbians, as a group, were more similar in this regard to gay men than they were to women.

[Stephan Kinsella]

Does the First Amendment apply to state universities? "Congress shall make no law..."

[Jason]

Gwyn,

As one of those lower-paid younger workers in the sorry, poorly lit vineyards of academia, I'd like to point out that older scholars often do a lot more than younger ones. I don't just mean that they produce more scholarship; they teach more challenging (because larger or more advanced) classes, advise more students, handle more administrative responsibilities, etc. Many academics do slack off when they hit full professor, but just as many don't.

I'm going to assume that for most readers the importance of tenure in protecting free academic inquiry from political witch hunts--especially at state universities--is pretty self-evident based on this cage match between Triple H and the University of Nevada.

[James Leroy Wilson]

Mr. Kinsella, are you being sarcastic? I thought you were an opponent of Incorporation. What's happening to Dr. Hoppe is outrageous, but I'd be embarrassed if he's defended by right-libertarians on First Amendment grounds.

[Stephan Kinsella]

Wilson: "Mr. Kinsella, are you being sarcastic? I thought you were an opponent of Incorporation. What's happening to Dr. Hoppe is outrageous, but I'd be embarrassed if he's defended by right-libertarians on First Amendment grounds."

I am an opponent of Incorporation, but I was not sarcastic. My question was meant to show that the First Am does not cover state action aimed at speech. UNLV's actions don't violate the 1st amendment as the Constitution was written, though they would, IMO, as it is currently (and wrongly) construed by the Supreme Court.

[James Leroy Wilson]

My bad. I somehow read it as, "Doesn't the First Amendment apply to state universities?" We're in complete agreement.

[Stephan Kinsella]

Wilson--ahh--! You're a good guy?!

[Gwyn Thomas]

Jason,
My post was a reply to SR,who seems to think that a contract,any contract, obviates free market problems.Tenure might reward older teachers who are more productive than their younger counterparts-but it might not.A free market in education would probably come up with better ways to retain them than guaranteeing lifetime employment.As for the academic freedom argument,journalists,columnists and radio talk show hosts discuss controversial issues and stimulate public debate every day in the private market without such guarantees.

[Termagant]

I respectfully suggest that Kip Esquire's argument is sophistic and dangerously so. It is true that the university has an interest in ensuring the competence and integrity of faculty. Flat-earthers, plagarists and data-forgers may not seek protection from the (misincorporated) 1st amendment.

Kip navigates these cross-currents by suggesting that only properly footnoted opinions are protectable, inviting authorities to recast most objectionable speech as sanctionable pedagogic malpractice. This ignores the reality -and would kill the spontaneity - of virtually all classroom discussion.

In this specific case the Professor advanced a statement that was undoubtedly not properly qualified. He surely would not have been as glib in publishing for a peer-reviewed journal. But I do not believe that a serious argument can be made that his error rose to a level of seriousness or materiality sufficient to call into question his professional competence as an economist.

I confess it would be a closer case if an evolutionary biologist bombarded his students with racist views (a few have done so). In such a case of apparent material error the Professor might bear the burden of defending his methods and motives. In a case where the questionable view is embedded in a hypothetical, or otherwise peripheral to the subject, the authorities should bear a heavy burden in establishing misconduct. In this area above all we need to make rigorous and principled distinctions.