Feb 8, 2005
Response to Ralph Luker's Question
Ralph Luker has asked me the following question:
But the administration's non-response should not be interpreted as a vindication of his ideas or as a ban on all future criticism of them. An academic freedom that only cuts one way is no better than an academic fascism.
Academics who disagree with Hoppe--or with any similarly controversial figure--have a responsibility to speak out against that individual, and to counter his doubtful claims not with punishment, but with better, more substantive counter-claims. What astonishes me most in the PC wars is how eager some people are to defend dubious assertions merely because criticizing them will suggest that they bear some superficial similarities to the left. Real academic freedom is going to upset everyone, not just half of everyone.
There are very few places where I think the administration ought to discipline academics. Fraud clearly deserves punishment, as does neglect of one's academic duties. I am inclined to think, for instance, that a professor who taught his students that the Holocaust never happened--or that it was merely a"theory"--is necessarily engaging in a knowing misrepresentation of the facts. Such a person should be fired, and I would feel not the least sympathy for him.
Happily, Prof. Hoppe is no such fraud. He's merely made a doubtful claim that seems likely based on personal bias. He deserves to have a bunch of other academics howl at him for a few days, and then we'll all move on.
Assume, just for the purpose of discussion, that an administration knows that it has a tenured bigot on its faculty. And assume, for the purpose of discussion, that he offers a generalization in class that seems reasonable, given the known, maybe even the knowable, facts. The generalization may be a function of his bias. It offends some people. It is probably contestable. What, if anything, is the administration's appropriate action? Should it: a) fire the faculty member? b) suspend the man? c) deny him a year's salary increase and put a letter of reprimand in his file? or d) insist that he take sensitivity training?I believe that in almost all cases, the administration should do none of the above. Prof. Hoppe's case is certainly one that it should ignore.
But the administration's non-response should not be interpreted as a vindication of his ideas or as a ban on all future criticism of them. An academic freedom that only cuts one way is no better than an academic fascism.
Academics who disagree with Hoppe--or with any similarly controversial figure--have a responsibility to speak out against that individual, and to counter his doubtful claims not with punishment, but with better, more substantive counter-claims. What astonishes me most in the PC wars is how eager some people are to defend dubious assertions merely because criticizing them will suggest that they bear some superficial similarities to the left. Real academic freedom is going to upset everyone, not just half of everyone.
There are very few places where I think the administration ought to discipline academics. Fraud clearly deserves punishment, as does neglect of one's academic duties. I am inclined to think, for instance, that a professor who taught his students that the Holocaust never happened--or that it was merely a"theory"--is necessarily engaging in a knowing misrepresentation of the facts. Such a person should be fired, and I would feel not the least sympathy for him.
Happily, Prof. Hoppe is no such fraud. He's merely made a doubtful claim that seems likely based on personal bias. He deserves to have a bunch of other academics howl at him for a few days, and then we'll all move on.