Regarding the student who felt “insulted” by Hoppe’s lecture, it is most unfortunate that this nonsense has been allowed to go on. The student should be told to grow up. The UNLV should allow professor’s to expose students to new, provocative, and even controversial ideas. Hoppe was simply stating an accurate generalization: a person who does not have children will not save as much as they otherwise would. This can be applied to homosexuals, in so far as they don’t have children.There are many professors who believe homosexuality is morally wrong*. They shouldn’t be prevented from arguing such. Professors’ lectures shouldn’t be filtered through an academic bureaucracy of political correctness and “non-offensiveness”.
Furthermore, it is a violation of the University’s contractual agreements with Prof. Hoppe for them to punish him for exercising academic freedom. The University should apologize to Prof. Hoppe for this. Furthermore, any members of the UNLV administration who allowed this disgrace to propagate should be fired.
* I am not trying to say here that Hoppe believes this. I am saying that if he can’t even make economic generalizations about homosexuals as a group, then surely professors of morality/philosophy can’t discuss questions regarding the morality of homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. This would lead to a stiffling of moral discussions, as professors wouldn’t want to “offend” anybody by arguing that actions they partake in are wrong.
{ 11 comments }
David,
Naturally I am as appalled/amused by this episode as the next guy, but I think we should be a little more careful in our defense of Hoppe. (And I’m just picking on you because you seem to have tried to finesse the argument to make it correct, and because you don’t have any power over me…):
Hoppe was simply stating an accurate generalization: a person who does not have children will not save as much as they otherwise would. This can be applied to homosexuals, in so far as they don’t have children.
But that’s not what Hoppe has been quoted as saying; he said that homosexuals do in fact plan for the future less than heterosexuals. (Your argument would mean that homosexuals plan less for the future than they would if they had children.)
Just to (hopefully) win Rothbardians over to my minor quibble, consider a comparable argument: Women receiving WIC checks plan more for the future than women who don’t, because the former tend to have more children.
Prof. Murphy,
You’re correct. That isn’t exactly what Hoppe said. However, he also didn’t say homosexuals save less, but rather that they tend to save less. Actually, we don’t really know what he said, as we don’t have a direct quote, but a paraphrased version. According to the article:
Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals, Hoppe said.However, Hoppe said that he touched on the topic for approximately 90 seconds, or a minute and a half. From the lectures I’ve attended, I think I can say that Hoppe would have said more than 2 or 3 sentences in a minute and a half. I think a more precise elaboration would have been provided.
Unfortunately, unless there was a student transcribing his lecture almost word-for-word, or taking very thorough notes, we don’t know exactly what Hoppe said.
He said several other notable thing. He quoted inaccurate studies saying homosexuals have 250 partners, median. He said that there is reason to believe that John Meynard Keynes was homosexual, and that this could explain his short-sighted economic theories.
Now I know you don’t agree with Keynes much on this blog, but surely you deplore reducing his intellectual work to a homosexual slur? Isn’t this the kind of post-modern analysis that you deride all those lefties for, ignoring the logic of the theories and saying it is only an expression of their cultural group?
Of course Hoppe shouldn’t be fired over this, and I think most agree the university shouldn’t take any action. But there is no reason we have to defend his poor words. You repeat that we don’t know what he said, so why do you automatically assume the student was overreacting? Because any liberal freshman who raises a complaint MUST be overreacting? I defend the student’s right to raise a complaint and let the professor know that he feels is creating an atmosphere that is difficult to have a dialogue in.
David,
Sure thing. And again, in case some people are misunderstanding, I am NOT saying Hoppe said something false. I’m just pointing out that many of his defenders are acting as if what he said is clearly proven, simply because (a) people with children tend to save more and (b) homosexuals tend to have fewer children than heterosexuals. This doesn’t follow, because there could be offsetting factors. (E.g. people who have to buy their wives fancy clothes tend to save less, and homosexuals tend to have fewer wives than heterosexuals…)
Mr. Vila,
Because I’ve listened to some of Hoppe’s lectures, and have met him, I’m assuming the student is over-reacting and needs to grow up. If the student thought that Hoppe wasn’t right, and that that study was flawed, then he should have said something. Hoppe wasn’t reducing Keynes’ “work” to homosexual slur. He was trying to get a psychological explanation as for why Keynes took those views.
Murray Rothbard gave an entire lecture on Keynes, the man (PDF transcript here). There is nothing wrong with analyzing a man himself, as many have also done regarding Adam Smith and his disgusting plagiarism. No-where in his publicans has Hoppe said or implied that Keynes was wrong because he was a homosexual (and there are many things, even if we accept that homosexuality is wrong, that were more wrong about Keynes).
I also disagree that students should be allowed to file complaints about things like this. The student simply didn’t like the argument that Hoppe was making. So, he’s going to try to ruin a man’s reputation for that? I don’t view that as acceptable at all. The student ought to be disciplined.
RPM:
Surely, you can introduce a plethora of “offsetting factors”, in both directions. Homosexuals cannot marry, making them more financially independent and less likely to save for the future. We could do this all day long. However, the statement, in the abstract, is valid. The only way to validate his statement outside of the abstract is to reference actual objective studies done on the subject. Incidentally, do you know of any such studies? I certainly don’t. So, without such data, the only “real”, relevant point is his statement, in the abstract, which is logically correct.
David Heinrich:
While I support Hans’s right to make his statements, I also support the students’ right to complain—whether it be directly to Professor Hoppe himself, or to his bosses. The fact that a student is easily offended, and/or a whiny tattle-tale, and/or an idiot, is no reason to “discipline” him. The problem here lies not with the complaintant, it lies with those who respond to the complaints, and how they do so.
To me, it seems a bit inconsistent for you to champion Hoppe’s right to say what he pleases, while at the same time demanding that the students should not have the same right. Whether or not the kid was “trying to ruin his reputation” is debateable, but the eggregious reaction by UNLV is not. They are at fault here—for, a complaint is nothing more than a complaint unless those in power choose to react to it.
I also see a bit of ideology bias coming out as well. If the prof in question was a Keynesian, and he was, for example, espousing negative views about heterosexuals, and Mises or Rothbard, I suspect that you and others would not be so quick to demand that “the student ought to be disciplined”. But perhaps I am wrong.
Mr. Williams,
1. Shouldn’t there be some kind of penalty for student’s wasting everyone’s time? Hoppe has given the same lecture many times before, with no complaints. I think that making false-allegations — either on a campus or of a crime — should be something punishable in-and-of itself.
2. You are right, the majority of the blame falls on the UNLV faculty. However, at least some of the blame falls on the student, particularly the time of those he wasted, who had to process his complaint.
3. Regarding, would I defend a Keynesian, that depends. I would defend LRC-columniust Paul Craig Roberts, who I believe is a Keynesian (correct me if I’m wrong), but many of them I wouldn’t. For most Keynesians are overall Statist, and thus I’d have little sympathy for them. If the “academic freedom” of someone who advocates mass-theft is abridged, that’s just a small small dose of poetic justice. Such a person has established himself as an initiator of aggression, and supporter of mass initiation of aggression, thus I’m not inclined for moral reasons to defend them. Certainly, it wouldn’t be as worthwhile to me to defend a Statist as an Austrian.
The only reason to defend one of these criminals would be practical. While they very much deserve punishment for what they’ve advocated, silencing them suggests that Austrians and libertarians have something to fear, and cannot win the battle of ideas.
So, my answer to — “if it had been a Keynesian…” — would depend on the necessity for further knowledge. Did that Keynesian advocate or participate in Statism? If so, then any “breach” of contract with him is nothing for a libertarian to be concerned with legally or morally, as it would in fact be justice (retaliation). The only concern would be practical.
If the Keynesian, despite being a Keynesian, did not advocate State-interventionism, and was overall libertarian, I would defend him.
I’m gay and I’m also a Rothbardian. (Matter of fact, Murray even knew me by my first name!)
At this writing, I have only 40 pages remaining to finish Prof. Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed.” It further seals my Rothbardianism and tightens up even more loose ends in reasoning about The State. Murray’s “The Ethics of Liberty” does more of the same.
In The Natural (non-State) Order, I fully accept that many folks may prefer to marginalize and/or shun those with high time preferences (short-term thinking, little planning for the future). Then again, I also know that folks can and do “let their hair down” every once in a while. (Been there, done that, still saving for the t-shirt.)
On its face, Prof. Hoppe’s statement that homosexuals tend to plan less for the future seems like it may be valid.
But I wonder a little. Parents who have children are likely to have a helpful resource in their old age, i.e., said children, so perhaps they feel less compelled to earn and save even larger amounts while the children are growing up.
Those of us who have no “built-in cushion” for old age may indeed feel compelled to save an even higher percentage of income as old age insurance. I am a member of an investment club of gay men who have been planning for the future for 11 years now. (OK, I was a founder.) In case you weren’t aware, the Federal Reserve and Social Security are not helping homosexuals either.
Is a low time preference (that’s the good one) among gay men widespread? Not sure. A valid possibility? I think so.
Some random thoughts,
How can couples save and plan when they have children when children cost more money than not having them? Do homosexuals consume more than average on non-durables? If they put money into possessions (instead of children), do those possessions retain value (so not ‘planning’ for the future does not necessarily connote poor behaviors or negative results – a generalization I’ve heard is that gays are generally well educated and wealthier on average)? Is planning for the future always necessarily monetary? Of course people who have children are going to plan the future versus those who don’t. Heterosexuals who don’t have children and are on in years have never struck me as ‘mature’ in the same way as people with children do, they are much more self-centered, so I would conclude this would apply to homosexuals without children, and by and large homosexuals have a lot less children. Do homosexuals not plan for the future because planning for the future presumes some basic buy into ‘the plan’ (i.e. the normalized curve) that the heterosexual majority melds to, and since homosexuals are, by and large, culturally outside most standard norms they plan and behave differently in non-sexual behaviors as well? Is this what Hoppe driving at? One could make that assertion without being heavy handed and judgemental, it merely observes a pattern of behavior.
Getting more specific, it seems that the central issue is how we have two approaches to individual (supposed) well-being. The anarcho-capitalist approach of individual interaction free from bureaucratic force, and the ‘tyranny of the individual’ where one offended person can tap into the bureaucracy and stultify free thought and association for everyone else. The second approach deems to protect individual’s psyches from abuse, and purports to champion individual rights. But the paradox is that it resorts to oblique bureaucratic collectivism to rectify what is ultimately a private matter.
The best solution would be for the offended student to feel free to debate the issue openly or in private (I assume Hoppe has some office hours, or at least I would hope so if one is going to be provocative – yes I realize that there will likely be academic assistance also, but that Hoppe would allow some interaction with students). If nothing else, use some forum to offer a counter argument. Unfortunately we live in a culture which no longer chooses to debate ideas, but to instantly resort to bureaucratic sanction and automatically put every issue into quasi-litigation versus interpersonal exchange of ideas.
David,
What was the point of this quote “There are many professors, who believe homosexuality is morally wrong.” I don’t think that this quote does Pr. Hoppe any justice. Do you in fact know that this is how he feels about homosexuality? The point he made could of just as easily been made by someone who is not homophobic, because, like you said– he was making a generalization about a well known theory.
Gary,
I was not trying to say that Prof. Hoppe thinks homosexuality is morally wrong, or that I think he does. I was trying to say that if Prof. Hoppe can’t even be allowed to make some economic statements (generalizations) about homosexuals as a group, then there is no way that any professors of religion, morality, or philosophy could discuss moral questions regarding homosexuality (or rather, homosexual behaviour). This would lead to a stiffling much discussion on morality, as you wouldn’t want to “offend” anyone by claiming that a certain behaviour they engage in may be wrong.
Comments on this entry are closed.