Maryland university apologizes for Block

Walter Block has grown accustomed to criticism of his views. The economics professor has defended his libertarian beliefs in public debates and in print on a number of occasions at his home Loyola University New Orleans. However, in November, Block received criticism on a different level.

Days after he presented guest lectures there, the Economics Department of the Loyola College of Maryland publicly condemned and apologized for Block’s “insensitive and incorrect remarks.” The apology, printed in the Nov. 11 issue of the college’s newspaper, was buttressed by a campus-wide e-mail from the Rev. Brian F. Linnane, Loyola Maryland president, who said he refused to “endorse or support racism, sexism or any other form of intolerance.”

Economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo invited Block to speak both to his class and the university’s Adam Smith Society. His lecture held that wage discrepancies between women and men were the result of lower productivity, rather than discrimination. The uneven tasks in marriage he said were the culprit for lower productivity.

During the question-and-answer session Block fielded a question about the wage gap between blacks and whites, which he said also resulted from a difference in productivity levels. Block gave two reasons for the productivity disparity between the groups which he also paraphrased in his column on http://www.LewRockwell.com:
“The politically correct answer is that lower black productivity is due to slavery, Jim Crow legislation, poor treatment of African-Americans in terms of schooling, etc. The politically incorrect explanation was supplied by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their book ‘The Bell Curve’: Lower Black IQs.”

In a letter written to the school newspaper, The Greyhound, the economics department called Block’s comments regarding women and blacks, “racially-insensitive,” “erroneous” and indicative of “poor-quality scholarship.”

In a Nov. 18 response in The Greyhound, DiLorenzo said he and Department Chair, the Rev. Hank Hilton, refused to sign the apology letter — and that only three of its signatories actually attended the lecture. Furthermore, DiLorenzo criticized the position of the signees while defending Block.

“To simply assume, without evidence, that all the disparity is caused by discrimination is sloppy scholarship,” he wrote.

In a press release the Rev. Kevin Wildes, S.J., university president, said Block’s views were not representative of the university, but defended his right to an opinion.

“Universities, like Loyola, are places of argument and disagreement. They are laboratories of free expression and academic inquiry. This is how we advance knowledge and learning,” he said.

Block acknowledged “people are naturally suspicious of my views — which is reasonable.” He encourages disagreement even among his own students. Block said his favorite papers, some of which he has helped publish, are the ones that are critical of his own views. 
 
Steve Heath can be reached at scheath@loyno.edu.

4 comments

Machiavelli Zappidas Charsamptuous III

Tue Dec 16 2008 08:51

I sure would like to see a transcript of his remarks that have caused so much controversy. I'll bet they weren't nearly as inflammatory as they've been made out to be.

If all he said is that the wage gaps narrow once one considers (and adjusts for) multiple factors other than invidious discrimination, I would think that would be pretty easy to demonstrate as being true. I doubt he claimed that invidious discrimination doesn't exist (or hasn' existed) or that such discrimination is somehow laudable.

Someone else's name, Washington

Sun Dec 7 2008 01:56

The author shouldn't be concerned with who doles out criticism; only that it exists. As for responses to Block's racism, or political incorrectness, I have yet to see any impartial reporting. Lets try to focus on the actual issue here.

When Wildes says that universities are labs of free expression, and academic inquiry, he recognized that the operative concept of that is argument and disagreement. We can be offended by what Block said, or we can make lucid arguments against it. Being upset by unqualified claims only gives them credence, so speak out.

I for one, think what Block said grossly diminished the reality of the situation, and I believe he chose not to include inherent inequalities. In an historical context, African Americans and women have endured more hardship than White males. Instead of looking at the social and economic evolution of the situation, I feel like he chose Social Darwinism and exceptionalism.

Being controversial is fun and, most of the time, thats all it is.

Steve Heath

Fri Dec 5 2008 20:25

Thanks for the comment, "Your name."

Your name

Fri Dec 5 2008 13:14

The author of this article should have dug deeper to find out the Loyola community's reaction to Block's comments. No quotes are listed from Loyola community members who may have felt opposed to, or agreed with, Block's comments. The only quotes offered are from e-mails and press releases, or other printed articles. Overall, this is lazy reporting. This is a huge Loyola issue, and The Maroon glossed over it big-time.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out