Monday, February 10, 2014

OUTRAGEOUS Conduct from the President of the University Where Walter Block Teaches

The following letter from Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D. was published in The Maroon, the student newspaper of  Loyola University New Orleans. Fr. Wildes is the president of the University.
Dear Editors,

One of our goals as an academic institution is to encourage people to cultivate critical thinking. 
You can imagine my dismay when reading the Sunday New York Times and I found remarks by Dr. Walter Block.
 In the Jan. 25 article “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance”, Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong.  First, he made the claim that chattel slavery “was not so bad.”  “Bad” is a comparative measure that, like every comparison, is understood in a contrast set. My initial question was where is the evidence?

Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion.  Furthermore, it is also conceptually contradictory to his position as a libertarian that people could be treated as property against their will.  So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone’s free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles.

His second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake.  In peaking [sic] of discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing.
What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race. No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter.  The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded from the lunch counter because of their race.

If these remarks were made in a paper for my class, I would return the paper with a failing grade. This is hardly critical thinking. Rather it is a position filled with assertions, without argument or evidence, to gain attention.

Sincerely yours,
Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D.

President

This letter is one of the most outrageous acts that I am aware of that has ever been exercised by a University president.

Fr. Wildes apparently has failed to note the key contradiction in the NYT article he referenced or has chose to ignore it. Fr. Wildes simply chooses to pronounce that Dr. Block claims that "chattel slavery 'was not so bad.' [...]  So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone’s free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles."

Yet, at one point, the NYT article states that Dr. Block holds the opposite position from what Fr. Wildes suggests (My highlight):
One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”
This is clearly the opposite of the position Fr. Wildes claims Dr. Block holds and a contradiction to other parts of the NYT article. There are really two possible ways that Dr. Wilde could claim what he does about Dr. Block, given what NYT wrote. Fr. Wildes either has a reading comprehension problem (if he read the entire article) or he is being dishonest. Neither option wears well on a university president.

Fr. Wildes goes on with a more grandiose distortion, that Dr.Block in his position on the Civil Rights Act has made "a fundamental logical: mistake."  NYT wrote
Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will."

Fr. Wildes countered:
Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing. 
What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race. No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter.
The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded from the lunch counter because of their race.
Does Fr. Wildes even understand what goes on at a Woolworth's lunch counter? There is not only the possibility of interaction with others at the counter, but there is necessary interaction with a waiter/waitress and possibly a cashier. That is, under the Civil Rights Act there can be forced associations.

Further, this a four sentence quote from NYT of Dr. Block's view. If Fr. Wildes would take time to look into the thinking of Dr. Block on the Civil Rights Act, he would find it goes well beyond the NYT sound bite and includes a complete defense of property rights and the right of property owners to have whomever they want on their property and to prevent anyone they choose from coming on their property. Indeed, if Fr. Wildes wanted to be generous he could have interpreted Dr. Block's comment on association to mean association on private property, but nowhere in his letter does it appear that Fr. Wildes is attempting in anyway to be generous to Dr. Block.

In summary, Fr. Wildes' letter appears to be a vicious attack on unfounded grounds against one of his own employees. It is outrageous and I really can't fathom why a university president would stoop to such mischaracterizations and distortions. There is now a black eye on  Loyola University New Orleans, not because of what Dr. Block said in defense of a pure libertarian position, but in the outrageous manner in which Fr.Wildes distorted Dr.Block's position and failed to stand up for Dr. Block in his principled positions, however different those principles are from the positions held by Fr. Wildes, himself. If Fr.Wildes won't stand up for one of his professor's promoting his scholarly views, one wonders what Fr. Wildes would stand up for. He is an embarrassment to the academic community.

25 comments:

  1. Yea, this guy is as far from a leader as one can get. He is bad news. This dude had the chance to defend Dr. Block and prove his university what he claimed it to be and pique the interests of future college students everywhere and HE BLEW IT! He made himself look like a sackless-jerk and a moron instead.

    I think I will email Dr. Block and CC Kevin instead. No chance that ass clown reads all the emails he's gotten and will get anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the record, although I agree with Dr. Block, I just expected such a highly intelligent and eloquent person would be a little more careful with his words. No matter how correct you are, or however honest your intentions, having those words come out in that order in front of a NYT reporter and his/her recorder is an invitation for trouble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO WAY! This hatchet job guarantees Dr. Block a spot as one of the movements titans. Not even Mises and Rothbard made it as far as the front page of a national newspaper did they?

      Delete
  3. Kevin, you need to get your balls back you little coward. If that's not the problem then you're just plain stupid. If so then burn your "PhD", it's worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am so looking forward to the day when the academic gravy train comes to an end. The education bubble is about to pop, and a lot of these sanctimonious blowhards who have chosen to malign the character of Dr. Block are going to get theirs. Karma is a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it's important to show support for Prof. Block. Tom Woods set up a page that has the emails of both Block and Loyola's president. Take a look: http://tomwoods.com/walter/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Wildes jumps to conclusions about what Dr. Block intended, let alone what he actually said, from reading of Dr. Block's opinion, as reported in a one-line throw-away dismissal, written by a New York Times opinion hack? This, by Dr Wildes' own admission, in the letter he wrote to the editors of The Maroon? I would hope that he didn't actually write that letter, that someone who was trying to discredit the president of Loyola forged his name on it, but I find that wildly improbable. Given the evidence of that letter, I don't know how much to attribute to shameless intellectual slovenliness and how much to pure foolhardy ignorance, and how much to attribute to poor impulse control. Disgraceful. My, how the times have changed. When I was younger the Jesuits had more intellectual integrity and self-respect than to allow someone like Wildes to represent one of their institutions and to hold a position of leadership in it. Incredible, and very sad.
    -- Robert L.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fr. Wildes, not Dr. Wildes. He's a Jesuit, like the economist Pope Francis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He's a Jesuit, like the economist Pope Francis."

      lmao! Great statement.

      Delete
    2. He also holds a PhD. Let's not misrepresent our opponents.

      Delete
  8. The Civil Rights Act does not force Woolworth employees to work at a place of public accommodation any more than it forces white customers to frequent a place of public accommodation. They can get a job at a private country club which is allowed to discriminate based on race or they can do something else for a living.

    The forced interaction is forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to take money from black people. Once you phrase it that way, you see how ridiculous the "forced association" argument is. A corporation is merely a balance sheet with assets on one side and liabilities on the other. The "victim" of Title II of the Civil Rights Act is always a corporation or some other limited liability entity. Corporations do not have and have never had free association rights under the 1st. This is a right that has no historical basis.

    The better libertarian argument is based on depriving shareholders of their property rights. Places of public accommodation discriminate to attract white customers who make up the majority. You force Woolworth to serve blacks in a racist community that has 10% black population, then you might only wind up with black customers. This is a big hit to revenue. That argument has some strength even though shareholders are taking a public subsidy in the form of limited personal liability. The "forced association" argument is a joke and something someone came up with to compare Title II to slavery. It really does not pass the laugh test.

    The biggest flaw in Block's reasoning is arguing that slavery was only bad because it infringed on black's right to free association, otherwise "it was not so bad, you could pick cotton and sing songs." Apparently only a single clause from the 1st Amendment matters. The rest of the 1st and the other Amendments are irrelevant. That definitely contradicts Block's position as a libertarian and that's what Wildes should have focused on when calling out Block for being a hypocrite.

    Wildes should have also criticized Block for saying that anyone who supports Title II supports slavery. Forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to accept money from black people is not showing support for slavery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They can get a job at a private country club which is allowed to discriminate based on race or they can do something else for a living."

      LOL. Name one country club in the U.S. today which is allowed to discriminate based on race.

      Delete
    2. "JW: Troll."

      Beat me to it anon. ;)

      Delete
    3. 'A corporation is merely a balance sheet with assets on one side and liabilities on the other.'

      And a charter.
      And shareholders.
      And office holders.
      And employees.
      And an established network of suppliers and customers.

      But ignoring all those, just a balance sheet.

      'The "victim" of Title II of the Civil Rights Act is always a corporation or some other limited liability entity.'

      I seem to remember individual photographers being forced against their will to photograph weddings, and being individually punished when they refused. We are told, “it is the price of citizenship,” but citizens are individuals, yes? Flesh and blood people. Corporations can't be citizens, surely.

      Delete
    4. People of the slave era would agree slaves had it pretty good because of the "wage slavery" movement that occurred then. Slaves had a permanent job as well their owners had a financial interest in making make sure they didn't get unnecessarily injured or sick.

      Delete
    5. Unless said property wanted to take off where upon the robbed owner would beat the hell out off them.

      Delete
    6. Not sure about country clubs and race discrimination, but the most elite country club in Lexington, Kentucky still prohibits Jews from becoming members.

      Delete
    7. Look at the recent cases of wedding caterers and florists (yes, FLORISTS!) refusing to work for gay weddings, and the fact that the state is FORCING them to do so. That's slavery.

      I would never give business to a company that didn't want to deal with me and my partner.

      Delete
  9. Haha, that'll get a nice response from Block.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry JW, if the civil rights act outlaws discrimination, then by definition it forces an individual to associate.
    Whether they can choose other employment is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The daily life of the economist not so bad — you stick your head up your ass and sing songs...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Replies
    1. My thoughts exactly...also, he didn't even stop to think once about whether what was being reported was accurate.

      Not a good sign for Loyola.

      Delete