![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
pissed off I thought long and hard about everything and with Dr. Hoppe playing this "victim" and with only his version of the story being known, I've gotta set the record straight and come out with everything that I know. I hope that after this goes public that Dr. Hoppe will just let it be, but who knows. If he decides to go to the TV media, then so be it. I'll fly home to Las Vegas and do a press conference.
I just cannot believe that of all organizations, the ACLU is supporting a man that believes that Focus on the Family (aka, the Family Research Institute, led by Jerry Falwell) is substantial evidence to prove that homosexuals live a riskier lifestyle. This coming from an organization that feels that homosexuals are low lifes and basically scum. Plus, the simple fact is...none of Dr. Hoppe's materials presented in lecture were peer reviewed (meaning, no other professor has reviewed this material and written any type of commentary). This is against university guidelines.
This ought to be interesting...stay tuned!
February 9 2005, 16:38:14 UTC 7 years ago
Anonymous
February 11 2005, 19:16:22 UTC 7 years ago
Peer review
Mr. Knight:I have been a university professor for over ten years. Your statement about lecture materials having to be "peer reviewed" is preposterous. I would guess 80-90% of what is presented in a typical undergraduate university lecture does not meet your guidelines. I assume Professor Hoppe used a textbook or some published materials as the basis for the course. That material has surely been reviewed by peers (for refereed journal articles) or editors (for textbooks). But the professor's interpretation of the material, the examples and illustrations he uses -- virtually none of that is subject to prior review by another professor. Whoever has told you that off-hand remarks in a lecture need to be peer reviewed has obviously never taught at a university.
If you were offended by your professor's remarks, then fine, you are free to say so. But to claim that he has violated university procedure (or standard operating procedures for university professors) by making statements in class that are not peer reviewed shows a complete lack of understanding of how higher education works.
Anonymous
February 11 2005, 20:16:36 UTC 7 years ago
Peer Review of Economic Principles
Sir,The economic principle of time preference, and the associated notion that people without immediate beneficiaries (i.e. children) tend, ceteris paribus, to save less has indeed been peer-reviewed countless times in both journal articles and textbooks. If you were serious about finding the truth of this matter, rather than merely finding support for your own opinion, you could verify this for yourself.
To the extent that other factors (apart from child-rearing) come into play, the empirical record may or may not support the more specific conclusion that homosexuals, as a group, save less. But the truth or falsehood of that proposition is not the issue -- it is whether such questions can even be raised in a classroom setting. The idea that such questions should be off-limits to scholarly inquiry is both preposterous and dangerous, and has been used many times in the past to discourage inquiry into the nature of human development, religion, culture, the origin of species, and yes, even homosexuality. Despite what you may think, yours is not the enlightened, but the reactionary view.
February 12 2005, 00:31:50 UTC 7 years ago