Look man, professors say all kinds of stupid stuff all across the world. People are offensive sometimes. Sometimes offensive opinions are even correct. But just because an opinion is offensive doesn't mean it needs to be stopped! By that standard most of what anyone says would be stopped, cus it's gotta be offensive to someone!
I really think you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. You claim this has made you a stronger person. A stronger person wouldn't need to make a formal case out of an academic comment that rubbed him the wrong way. He'd argue with the teacher or suck it up and move on with his life.
Universities are supposed to be about discussing controversial ideas in an open and, yes, often "offensive" manner.. Your proposal to make universities into sanitized havens of "political correctness" (your word) is a recipe for conformity and mediocrity. What a boring and stale educationalal system you, and your Nervous Nelly PC friends, are giving us.
Quote: -------- "He was stereotyping homosexuals -- we don't have any family values; we don't know how to manage our money; we basically just blow all our money immediately -- that was my take on it," said Knight, who is gay. "When the door closes and the lecture began, he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible." ---------- You seem to read way too much into Hoppe´s words...
Since you are so worried about "stereotyping homosexuals", what would you say upon reading this:
Quote: "It may well be that Keynes's experience as a homosexual gave him a depth of psychological and ethical insight that permitted him an awareness of and concern for those whose welfare is excluded from the dominant social thinking of European and North American societies.
Although he married and ostensibly lived heterosexually for the second half of his life, there is No DOUBT that homosexual life, together with its emotional and aesthetic sensibility, deeply shaped Keynes's personality. The creativity and daring of his intellectual life--particularly his ability to take unconventional stands and his skepticism towards widely-held illusions-- WERE INFORMED by his experience AS A HOMOSEXUAL."
Jeffrey Escoffier, in "an encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture": http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/keynes_jm,3.html
Or is it just "negative stereotyping" that raises your concerns?
What´s more, the validity of Escoffier´s assertions is definitely much more suspiscious than Hoppe´s generalizations regarding time preference of gays/childless people.
I am an attorney in Houston, Texas, a former adjunct law professor, and a widely published author on legal, economic, and related subjects. I am aware of the discliplinary action threatened against UNLV's economics dept. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Dr. Hoppe is probably UNLV's most prolific and pathbreaking professor; he is internationally renowned and in demand for speaking engagements continually world-wide on political and economic topics. In my personal opinion, he is one of the most important thinkers of our time, having signficantly advanced political and economic theory through his books, including A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, and other writings. I know of countless students, scholars, and others who have been profoundly influenced by Dr. Hoppe and regard him with the utmost appreciation and respect, as I do.
The treatment to which Dr. Hoppe has been subjected by UNLV is astonishing for a university that presumably prides itself on qualities such as fairness, intellectual honesty, and freedom of inquiry. To threaten Dr. Hoppe with punishment and breach of your contractual obligations to him for for his doing his job--and to baselessly impugn his reputation with kneejerk, politically-correct smears--is simply outrageous. This matter should have been concluded in Dr. Hoppe's favor within an hour or week, instead of having been dragged on in Kafka-esque fashion in this manner, presumably because no one is willing to speak up with common sense and common decency. Not only were Dr. Hoppe's comments within the contractual scope of his academic freedom, his statements were factually true. You may be unable to prevent your tax-subsidized students from having thin skin and wasting everyone's time with ridiculous whining, but that is no excuse to treat this man the way he has been treated.
It is my view that not only should Dr. Hoppe be issued an apology and termination of this ridiculous proceeding immediately, but that reasonable compensation should be offered to him given the unjust treatment UNLV has subjected him to.
I do not know what your personal role is in this matter, but if I were at an institution of higher education, purportedly dedicated to open inquiry and intellectual exploration, I would be ashamed at the way Dr. Hoppe has been, and continues to be, treated. I implore you to do what you must know to be the right thing in this case--to formally, openly, and immediately vindicate Dr. Hoppe and give him the respect and honor he deserves."
As a teacher of business ethics at Chapman University, I am truly revolted at the idea that Professor Hans Hoppe's generalizations, which simply serve as illustrations of statistically valid economic principles as applying to the behavior of different people with different beliefs and attitudes, should serve as grounds for any kind of academic reprimand. I, as a Hungarian born American, often make references to how Hungarians tend to behave in order to illustrate various points, and these generalizations are perfectly proper for their purposes. (For example, Hungarians will, in the main, chase a street car to catch it even at great risk, whereas Danish people will immediately look for the next car, once one has begun to move away from the station.) That people without children tend to save less avidly than those with children is a simple generalization that no rational person can dispute. Homosexuals tend not to have children as frequently as heterosexuals, so the generalization applies to them. I, who am a vocal supporter of gay marriages and other civil liberties, urge you to stop harassing Professor Hoppe."
"Dear President Carol C. Harter,
Universities are supposed to contribute to the development of character in their young charges. All too often they prefer to breed spineless, spoilt youngsters, forever poised to receive offence and ever eager to deploy Soviet-style procedures to destroy careers and reputations.
The complaining student was offended by Prof. H. Hoppe’s comments about the connection between broad group characteristics and life styles and time preference. For his own sake, make the student apologize for his snide tactics and teach him to debate, not defame."
"Dear President Harter,
I should like to include myself among those who have come to the defense of Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. If the freedom to teach is not as important as the freedom to learn, then there is little hope for the university as a place of dialogue and debate, where serious issues may be considered and scholarship pursued. These issues of Lehrfreit and Lernfreiheit were debated in 18th- and 19th-century German universities and form an important part of the German liberal tradition which Dr. Hoppe represents.
I add only that Professor Hoppe's work enjoys international recognition, recognition reflected by his overseas speaking engagements and the many translations of his work into languages other than English or German. He is an original and pioneering scholar, while at the same time he continues and extends the work of the late Murray N. Rothbard, who also taught at UNLV."
"Dear Dr. Alden and Dr. Robins:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's exceptional erudition, scholarship, and intelligence are a matter of public record, and have been for years. He is one of the very few academics of whom it can be said that his thinking has changed lives (including the lives of readers whom he has never even met) for the good.
Those of us around the world who are among America's most devoted friends - and who especially value American freedom of speech, so different from the soft-totalitarian tyranny prevailing in our own nations - would consider it reprehensible if Professor Hoppe's scholarly achievements were to be sacrificed on the altar of politically correct squeamishness, wherever that altar may be located."
You don't know me. My name is Daniel Franke and I'm a Computer Science student at the University of Florida, currently enrolled in an econ class comparable to the one you're taking with Hoppe. I run a libertarian blog of minor consequence at http://daniel.franke.name. I've been following Hoppe's story in the media for about a week now. The media shitstorm you've started is bigger than I think you realize. You may be getting some attention in the local papers, but you've also got the entire anarcho-capitalist blogsphere frothing at the mouth. One of the larger blogs, http://blog.mises.org, just posted a link to your livejournal encouraging readers to vent their spleen on you. You've got some flames coming your way, probably in volume.
Right now, there's one thing that it's absolutely essential that you realize and face up to: your anonymity is blown. Permanently. Since I'm not familiar with UNLV's policies I can't speak to whether Hoppe was within his rights to expose you, but bellyaching about it is going to be entirely wasted effort. If you try to continue burying your head in the sand, then some very articulate people are going to rip you a new orifice. If you want to come out on top of this, you're going to have to stand up to them, toe to toe, in the realm of ideas. This blog is the perfect medium for such discourse.
Let me be frank about my motives for offering this advice: I am 180 degrees opposed to what you are doing. I would like nothing more than to see you get handed a sound intellectual defeat. My own blog will be picking up this story in the near future, so I will be among those trying to hand you that defeat. However, if the only response you ever get to our criticism is a few lines quoted in the local paper, that's not a fair fight. Face the world. You've got nothing more to lose.
"Since I'm not familiar with UNLV's policies I can't speak to whether Hoppe was within his rights to expose you"
I do not believe Hoppe exposed Knight. But even if he had, Knight is the one who opened this up.
On another post, Knight wrote:
"So I received a phone call today from a good friend of mine that told me to immediately go to the web site below and take a look at what just happened. I cannot believe that my former professor had the audacity to go and break total confidentality over what occurred last semester.
"I am so pissed off right now, words cannot describe. This is not over. I will be discussing with the university as to what to do next. This is totally unacceptable and I will not be a victim."
You are a pathetic indictment of the education system in this country. You are not a victim at all. You are a snot-nosted punk. You are the one with the temerity to whine about the actions of the man whom you victimized. You started this whole thing with your sniveling whining, and then you complain that the victim is forced to fight back. Unbelievable.
First, from the economic point of view there is nothing wrong with the statement that Hoppe made in front of the class. To punish him is an attack on the freedom of academic speech. Although he made clear that he doesn't want to offend anybody, he is now the victim of a student and a bureaucracy that is obviously not interested in increasing the tolerance for groups like gays. If you, Michael, think your actions against Hoppe are a favor to the group of gays, you are wrong! My uncle is gay and I know some gay students. When I told them what happened at the UNLV there was one common opinion. What you did is wrong! It is against the wills of the gays to become more accepted in our society. Everybody was wondering why you go this way. If you are interested in defending the position of gays, why you did not raise your hand in Hoppe's class and began a discussion about that matter? The answer is probably: You have not enough courage! You prefer to use the instruments of bureaucray and media to avoid an eye-to-eye discussion with Hoppe. Again, in my eyes, Hoppe is right with his statement, although I understand everybody who thinks it is reasonable. But this is not the problem. The problem is your behaviour! If your aim is to fight for the interests of gays, then apologize to Hoppe immediately and try to find a way to discuss his position with him in the public. If you don't change your mind, I hope Hoppe sue the UNLV as well as you. There must be clear to everyone that a right statement at a university that is committed to protect the right of free speech for their members cannot be lead to a punishment only becuase off one man with missing courage and a missing comprehension of economic examples who is even on the wrong way if he tries to fight for the gays rights.
I was wondering if you would be so kind to answer a few questions for me.
1.) What are your thoughts on the Rebel Yell editorial that defends Prof. Hoppe?
2.) How do you answer the point that a lot of things that people don't like to hear are said in the classroom? I am also a college student and I have heard many anti-religious and misandristic statements used as part of a lecture, a number of them practically offensive. However, rather than lodge a complaint and punish my professor for espousing a viewpoint that I did not agree with, I have openly debated their remarks in class and challenged them on it, and if that did not work, I would let it go because I understand that in this world you're going to hear a lot of things that you don't want to hear. I am wondering what is to be gained from this kind of punishment because it won't change hearts and minds, rather Prof. Hoppe is being punished for an assumed wrong rather than being proved wrong on his statement (which he admits is a generalization)?
3. How do you answer the charge that this is an infringement on the right of the First Amendment?
4. What are your thoughts on the case of Ward Churchill, a similar case in which a leftist professor is under fire for making remarks about how 9/11 victims were not innocent victims but "little Eichmanns" because they worked in the WTC? Where is the line drawn on what professors can and cannot say without having someone breathing down their neck?
5. Could you elaborate on how you think professors should conduct themselves in class and what is they are allowed to say and what they're not allowed to say?
It is important to clarify that Professor Churchill was speaking exclusively of the "technocrats" in 9/11 and not each and every victim.
Sorry, it irritates me how the media has skewed the facts on this issue so significantly and thus many people are uninformed as to the actual issue. :) I'm a student at Boulder, that's why I'm involved, I suppose.
Seriously, how is saying that homosexuals generally don't have children, which they generally don't because they're not in heterosexual relationships with the same frequency that heterosexuals are... how is this incorrect or offensive?
I'm going to quote you from the article above: --- "He was stereotyping homosexuals -- we don't have any family values; we don't know how to manage our money; we basically just blow all our money immediately -- that was my take on it," said Knight, who is gay. "When the door closes and the lecture began, he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible." ---
Professor Hoppe didn't say all homosexuals plan less for the future than people with children because no homosexual has any children, and he didn't say homosexuals generally are bad with money, and have no family values whatsoever. He certainly didn't say what you are implying, which is that all homosexuals everywhere are bad with money and that all heterosexuals with kids are great with money. What he said, stated another way, is that people with children tend to plan more for the future, a future that includes supporting those children, than people without children. Homosexuals generally fall under the category of people without children.
None of this is meant to mean that every single member of a group behaves in this way or that way. Not every homosexual without children plans less for the future (is bad with money in your own words) than every heterosexual with children.
I know that you also took exception with Professor Hoppe's statement that homosexuals tend to lead riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals. If he is correct, and I tend to think that he is since life expectancy statistics show married heterosexuals have a longer life expectancy than homosexuals on average, then your complaint is really with an uncomfortable fact. You actually said that he should be more "politically correct". I didn't even know people still used that term in the positive sense anymore.
What I haven't seen stated in any of the articles concerning your dispute with Professor Hoppe, but which I suspect, is that you believe that he bears some sort of malice towards homosexuals and this is what truly offended you. Is this the case?
I am not a student of UNLV, I go to school a thousand miles away in North Carolina.
However, the current situation with Professor Hoppe concerns me. I had the privilege of attending a series of lectures given by Dr. Hoppe and other distinguished economists this past summer. I enjoyed his lectures immensely and have since picked up and read a number of books which he has written and edited.
I can think of no living economist which I hold in higher regard than Dr. Hoppe. I would hate to see his penetrating lectures and original analysis lost to the academic world.
Hoppe is being threatened with disciplinary action for a comment he made in a lecture about homosexual people. I've reviewed as many news articles as I could find about the incident and it seems to me that the comment made was scholarly in nature. As long as a comment is made in a scholarly manner, and not in an attacking or demeaning one, then it should be allowed.
One of the standards for allowable speech in an academic setting is NOT that no one gets offended. Otherwise, we would have to censor academic discourse to an unconscionable degree. Surely we could find some young sensitive soul to be offended at almost any lecture. It is too bad for them that making sure their feelings are not hurt is not the point of a university. The point of a university is learning, and your students will learn more with Professor Hoppe than with any other living economist.
If you agree with me that UNLV's purpose should be to teach and discover new knowlege, then I expect to hear that the charges against Hoppe have been dropped, with a full apology. If instead I hear that you have disciplined the good professor then I will know that UNLV's real purpose is to coddle students for four years and make sure that their feelings are not hurt.
6. Key to Prof. Hoppe's philosophy of economics is the idea of time preference, that people are in varying degrees of high and low time preference. There are certainly those who object to Prof. Hoppe's ideas on time preference, but this is often explored in the realm of academic debate. You, rather, have lodged a complaint singling in on a generalization that Prof. Hoppe made about different types of people in an economic world, building upon his own ideas of time preference. Prof. Hoppe uses these generalizations to illustrate his point on time preference, but you have taken offense to an admitted generalization he has made. I am curious as to why you didn't take offense to all generalizations as they may be true for some people and they may not be true for others. It is not just homosexuals that Prof. Hoppe generalized. You merely took offense because you yourself are gay and you don't feel that the generalization applies to you. Fair enough, but will you speak for everyone who is gay and say that all of them have family values and save their money wisely? I certainly won't speak for every heterosexual couple and say that all of them save their money wisely because I know a number of them who don't. The point of Hoppe's discourse was to illustrate how certain factors will effect someone's time preference. I am curious as to how you respond to this?
7. Would you have objected if Prof. Hoppe had made a generalization that homosexuals are good people and know how to save their money? That too is a generalization, or is your objection to negative generalizations? If it's to negative generalizations, it raises the question how positive generalizations can be okay but others aren't? Is it because negative generalizations have the possiblity of offending or bothering someone? In that case, would the same apply to truth and not just generalizations? Should the truth be outlawed if it also has the possibility of hurting and offending someone? Is admitting that you are making a generalization irrelevant as well? Prof. Hoppe has admitted as much, but this doesn't seem to concern you.
Actually, this all brings me back to an incident that happened a couple of weeks ago. I made a generalization about women to a friend of mine who took offense to it and accused me of being sexist. I countered that on the contrary, I was merely making a generalization based upon my experiences with the women I know and that it did not constitute sexism or any kind of hate speech because I wasn't advocating "The belief that one sex is superior to the other" or "the belief that men and women are very different and this should be strongly reflected in society, language, right to have sex, and the law."
Similarly, Prof. Hoppe's remarks seem to be innocuous because he wasn't placing any value judgment on them, but was rather speaking from a perspective that he has observed and has seen as a kind of trend. If you object to the factual questions of the remark, then perhaps it would be best that you proved Prof. Hoppe wrong rather than having him be reprimanded for a remark that you did not like.
You know what? I've decided that the internet photos you've posted of you (and your feeble, shirtless body) standing next to your boyfriend "offends" me. To that end, and since I am the "victim" of your offensive conduct, I plan to file formal complaints with AOL, Yahoo, and whatever service hosts your silly little weblog.
Hopefully it will result in a formal investigation or two, costing you thousands of dollars in legal fees, hours of wasted time, and more stress than you can stand. That would be a darn shame, but at least I will have rid the internet of all that is "offensive." I'll feel much better about myself after that.
People get offended ALL the time, come on!
I really think you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. You claim this has made you a stronger person. A stronger person wouldn't need to make a formal case out of an academic comment that rubbed him the wrong way. He'd argue with the teacher or suck it up and move on with his life.
Re: People get offended ALL the time, come on!
Mr. Knight
--------
"He was stereotyping homosexuals -- we don't have any family values; we don't know how to manage our money; we basically just blow all our money immediately -- that was my take on it," said Knight, who is gay. "When the door closes and the lecture began, he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible."
----------
You seem to read way too much into Hoppe´s words...
Since you are so worried about "stereotyping homosexuals", what would you say upon reading this:
Quote:
"It may well be that Keynes's experience as a homosexual gave him a depth of psychological and ethical insight that permitted him an awareness of and concern for those whose welfare is excluded from the dominant social thinking of European and North American societies.
Although he married and ostensibly lived heterosexually for the second half of his life, there is No DOUBT that homosexual life, together with its emotional and aesthetic sensibility, deeply shaped Keynes's personality. The creativity and daring of his intellectual life--particularly his ability to take unconventional stands and his skepticism towards widely-held illusions-- WERE INFORMED by his experience AS A HOMOSEXUAL."
Jeffrey Escoffier, in "an encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture":
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/keynes_jm,3.html
Or is it just "negative stereotyping" that raises your concerns?
What´s more, the validity of Escoffier´s assertions is definitely much more suspiscious than Hoppe´s generalizations regarding time preference of gays/childless people.
Any thoughts?
Respectfully,
MatěJ Šuster
Professor Hoppe
Sometimes the truth is offensive, that's why we have 1st Amendment protection. No one wants to censor things we don't find offensive.
You have two choices:
1. Apologize to Prof. Hoppe and move on
OR
2. Prove his comment wrong and get him to apologize to you.
My advise is to do the former ASAP.
Good Luck
some letters sent to UNLV on behalf of Hoppe
I am an attorney in Houston, Texas, a former adjunct law professor, and a widely published author on legal, economic, and related subjects. I am aware of the discliplinary action threatened against UNLV's economics dept. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Dr. Hoppe is probably UNLV's most prolific and pathbreaking professor; he is internationally renowned and in demand for speaking engagements continually world-wide on political and economic topics. In my personal opinion, he is one of the most important thinkers of our time, having signficantly advanced political and economic theory through his books, including A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, and other writings. I know of countless students, scholars, and others who have been profoundly influenced by Dr. Hoppe and regard him with the utmost appreciation and respect, as I do.
The treatment to which Dr. Hoppe has been subjected by UNLV is astonishing for a university that presumably prides itself on qualities such as fairness, intellectual honesty, and freedom of inquiry. To threaten Dr. Hoppe with punishment and breach of your contractual obligations to him for for his doing his job--and to baselessly impugn his reputation with kneejerk, politically-correct smears--is simply outrageous. This matter should have been concluded in Dr. Hoppe's favor within an hour or week, instead of having been dragged on in Kafka-esque fashion in this manner, presumably because no one is willing to speak up with common sense and common decency. Not only were Dr. Hoppe's comments within the contractual scope of his academic freedom, his statements were factually true. You may be unable to prevent your tax-subsidized students from having thin skin and wasting everyone's time with ridiculous whining, but that is no excuse to treat this man the way he has been treated.
It is my view that not only should Dr. Hoppe be issued an apology and termination of this ridiculous proceeding immediately, but that reasonable compensation should be offered to him given the unjust treatment UNLV has subjected him to.
I do not know what your personal role is in this matter, but if I were at an institution of higher education, purportedly dedicated to open inquiry and intellectual exploration, I would be ashamed at the way Dr. Hoppe has been, and continues to be, treated. I implore you to do what you must know to be the right thing in this case--to formally, openly, and immediately vindicate Dr. Hoppe and give him the respect and honor he deserves."
more letters
As a teacher of business ethics at Chapman University, I am truly revolted at the idea that Professor Hans Hoppe's generalizations, which simply serve as illustrations of statistically valid economic principles as applying to the behavior of different people with different beliefs and attitudes, should serve as grounds for any kind of academic reprimand. I, as a Hungarian born American, often make references to how Hungarians tend to behave in order to illustrate various points, and these generalizations are perfectly proper for their purposes. (For example, Hungarians will, in the main, chase a street car to catch it even at great risk, whereas Danish people will immediately look for the next car, once one has begun to move away from the station.) That people without children tend to save less avidly than those with children is a simple generalization that no rational person can dispute. Homosexuals tend not to have children as frequently as heterosexuals, so the generalization applies to them.
I, who am a vocal supporter of gay marriages and other civil liberties, urge you to stop harassing Professor Hoppe."
"Dear President Carol C. Harter,
Universities are supposed to contribute to the development of character in their young charges. All too often they prefer to breed spineless, spoilt youngsters, forever poised to receive offence and ever eager to deploy Soviet-style procedures to destroy careers and reputations.
The complaining student was offended by Prof. H. Hoppe’s comments about the connection between broad group characteristics and life styles and time preference. For his own sake, make the student apologize for his snide tactics and teach him to debate, not defame."
"Dear President Harter,
I should like to include myself among those who have come to the defense of Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. If the freedom to teach is not as important as the freedom to learn, then there is little hope for the university as a place of dialogue and debate, where serious issues may be considered and scholarship pursued. These issues of Lehrfreit and Lernfreiheit were debated in 18th- and 19th-century German universities and form an important part of the German liberal tradition which Dr. Hoppe represents.
I add only that Professor Hoppe's work enjoys international recognition, recognition reflected by his overseas speaking engagements and the many translations of his work into languages other than English or German. He is an original and pioneering scholar, while at the same time he continues and extends the work of the late Murray N. Rothbard, who also taught at UNLV."
"Dear Dr. Alden and Dr. Robins:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's exceptional erudition, scholarship, and
intelligence are a matter of public record, and have been for years.
He is one of the very few academics of whom it can be said that
his thinking has changed lives (including the lives of readers whom
he has never even met) for the good.
Those of us around the world who are among America's most
devoted friends - and who especially value American freedom of
speech, so different from the soft-totalitarian tyranny prevailing in
our own nations - would consider it reprehensible if Professor
Hoppe's scholarly achievements were to be sacrificed on the altar
of politically correct squeamishness, wherever that altar may be
located."
I think you need to grow up.
You don't know me. My name is Daniel Franke and I'm a Computer Science student at the University of Florida, currently enrolled in an econ class comparable to the one you're taking with Hoppe. I run a libertarian blog of minor consequence at http://daniel.franke.name. I've been following Hoppe's story in the media for about a week now. The media shitstorm you've started is bigger than I think you realize. You may be getting some attention in the local papers, but you've also got the entire anarcho-capitalist blogsphere frothing at the mouth. One of the larger blogs, http://blog.mises.org, just posted a link to your livejournal encouraging readers to vent their spleen on you. You've got some flames coming your way, probably in volume.
Right now, there's one thing that it's absolutely essential that you realize and face up to: your anonymity is blown. Permanently. Since I'm not familiar with UNLV's policies I can't speak to whether Hoppe was within his rights to expose you, but bellyaching about it is going to be entirely wasted effort. If you try to continue burying your head in the sand, then some very articulate people are going to rip you a new orifice. If you want to come out on top of this, you're going to have to stand up to them, toe to toe, in the realm of ideas. This blog is the perfect medium for such discourse.
Let me be frank about my motives for offering this advice: I am 180 degrees opposed to what you are doing. I would like nothing more than to see you get handed a sound intellectual defeat. My own blog will be picking up this story in the near future, so I will be among those trying to hand you that defeat. However, if the only response you ever get to our criticism is a few lines quoted in the local paper, that's not a fair fight. Face the world. You've got nothing more to lose.
Respectfully,
Daniel Franke
http://daniel.franke.name
Knight is a pussy
I do not believe Hoppe exposed Knight. But even if he had, Knight is the one who opened this up.
On another post, Knight wrote:
"So I received a phone call today from a good friend of mine that told me to immediately go to the web site below and take a look at what just happened. I cannot believe that my former professor had the audacity to go and break total confidentality over what occurred last semester.
"I am so pissed off right now, words cannot describe. This is not over. I will be discussing with the university as to what to do next. This is totally unacceptable and I will not be a victim."
You are a pathetic indictment of the education system in this country. You are not a victim at all. You are a snot-nosted punk. You are the one with the temerity to whine about the actions of the man whom you victimized. You started this whole thing with your sniveling whining, and then you complain that the victim is forced to fight back. Unbelievable.
What a joke
Why? Do you own the place or something? What right do you have to demand he teach a certain way?
Hoppe is right!!!
If you, Michael, think your actions against Hoppe are a favor to the group of gays, you are wrong! My uncle is gay and I know some gay students. When I told them what happened at the UNLV there was one common opinion. What you did is wrong! It is against the wills of the gays to become more accepted in our society. Everybody was wondering why you go this way. If you are interested in defending the position of gays, why you did not raise your hand in Hoppe's class and began a discussion about that matter? The answer is probably: You have not enough courage! You prefer to use the instruments of bureaucray and media to avoid an eye-to-eye discussion with Hoppe. Again, in my eyes, Hoppe is right with his statement, although I understand everybody who thinks it is reasonable. But this is not the problem. The problem is your behaviour! If your aim is to fight for the interests of gays, then apologize to Hoppe immediately and try to find a way to discuss his position with him in the public. If you don't change your mind, I hope Hoppe sue the UNLV as well as you. There must be clear to everyone that a right statement at a university that is committed to protect the right of free speech for their members cannot be lead to a punishment only becuase off one man with missing courage and a missing comprehension of economic examples who is even on the wrong way if he tries to fight for the gays rights.
Mr. Knight
1.) What are your thoughts on the Rebel Yell editorial that defends Prof. Hoppe?
2.) How do you answer the point that a lot of things that people don't like to hear are said in the classroom? I am also a college student and I have heard many anti-religious and misandristic statements used as part of a lecture, a number of them practically offensive. However, rather than lodge a complaint and punish my professor for espousing a viewpoint that I did not agree with, I have openly debated their remarks in class and challenged them on it, and if that did not work, I would let it go because I understand that in this world you're going to hear a lot of things that you don't want to hear. I am wondering what is to be gained from this kind of punishment because it won't change hearts and minds, rather Prof. Hoppe is being punished for an assumed wrong rather than being proved wrong on his statement (which he admits is a generalization)?
3. How do you answer the charge that this is an infringement on the right of the First Amendment?
4. What are your thoughts on the case of Ward Churchill, a similar case in which a leftist professor is under fire for making remarks about how 9/11 victims were not innocent victims but "little Eichmanns" because they worked in the WTC? Where is the line drawn on what professors can and cannot say without having someone breathing down their neck?
5. Could you elaborate on how you think professors should conduct themselves in class and what is they are allowed to say and what they're not allowed to say?
Re: Mr. Knight
Sorry, it irritates me how the media has skewed the facts on this issue so significantly and thus many people are uninformed as to the actual issue. :) I'm a student at Boulder, that's why I'm involved, I suppose.
You're kidding right?
I'm going to quote you from the article above:
---
"He was stereotyping homosexuals -- we don't have any family values; we don't know how to manage our money; we basically just blow all our money immediately -- that was my take on it," said Knight, who is gay. "When the door closes and the lecture began, he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible."
---
Professor Hoppe didn't say all homosexuals plan less for the future than people with children because no homosexual has any children, and he didn't say homosexuals generally are bad with money, and have no family values whatsoever. He certainly didn't say what you are implying, which is that all homosexuals everywhere are bad with money and that all heterosexuals with kids are great with money. What he said, stated another way, is that people with children tend to plan more for the future, a future that includes supporting those children, than people without children. Homosexuals generally fall under the category of people without children.
None of this is meant to mean that every single member of a group behaves in this way or that way. Not every homosexual without children plans less for the future (is bad with money in your own words) than every heterosexual with children.
I know that you also took exception with Professor Hoppe's statement that homosexuals tend to lead riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals. If he is correct, and I tend to think that he is since life expectancy statistics show married heterosexuals have a longer life expectancy than homosexuals on average, then your complaint is really with an uncomfortable fact. You actually said that he should be more "politically correct". I didn't even know people still used that term in the positive sense anymore.
What I haven't seen stated in any of the articles concerning your dispute with Professor Hoppe, but which I suspect, is that you believe that he bears some sort of malice towards homosexuals and this is what truly offended you. Is this the case?
Letter, and you're an idiot.
I am not a student of UNLV, I go to school a thousand miles away in North Carolina.
However, the current situation with Professor Hoppe concerns me. I had the privilege of attending a series of lectures given by Dr. Hoppe and other distinguished economists this past summer. I enjoyed his lectures immensely and have since picked up and read a number of books which he has written and edited.
I can think of no living economist which I hold in higher regard than Dr. Hoppe. I would hate to see his penetrating lectures and original analysis lost to the academic world.
Hoppe is being threatened with disciplinary action for a comment he made in a lecture about homosexual people. I've reviewed as many news articles as I could find about the incident and it seems to me that the comment made was scholarly in nature. As long as a comment is made in a scholarly manner, and not in an attacking or demeaning one, then it should be allowed.
One of the standards for allowable speech in an academic setting is NOT that no one gets offended. Otherwise, we would have to censor academic discourse to an unconscionable degree. Surely we could find some young sensitive soul to be offended at almost any lecture. It is too bad for them that making sure their feelings are not hurt is not the point of a university. The point of a university is learning, and your students will learn more with Professor Hoppe than with any other living economist.
If you agree with me that UNLV's purpose should be to teach and discover new knowlege, then I expect to hear that the charges against Hoppe have been dropped, with a full apology. If instead I hear that you have disciplined the good professor then I will know that UNLV's real purpose is to coddle students for four years and make sure that their feelings are not hurt.
I thank you for your time,
UNLV: "The Earth is flat"
http://www.economicsdaily.com/2005/02/unlv-earth-is-flat.html
Re: UNLV: "The Earth is flat"
7. Would you have objected if Prof. Hoppe had made a generalization that homosexuals are good people and know how to save their money? That too is a generalization, or is your objection to negative generalizations? If it's to negative generalizations, it raises the question how positive generalizations can be okay but others aren't? Is it because negative generalizations have the possiblity of offending or bothering someone? In that case, would the same apply to truth and not just generalizations? Should the truth be outlawed if it also has the possibility of hurting and offending someone? Is admitting that you are making a generalization irrelevant as well? Prof. Hoppe has admitted as much, but this doesn't seem to concern you.
Actually, this all brings me back to an incident that happened a couple of weeks ago. I made a generalization about women to a friend of mine who took offense to it and accused me of being sexist. I countered that on the contrary, I was merely making a generalization based upon my experiences with the women I know and that it did not constitute sexism or any kind of hate speech because I wasn't advocating "The belief that one sex is superior to the other" or "the belief that men and women are very different and this should be strongly reflected in society, language, right to have sex, and the law."
Similarly, Prof. Hoppe's remarks seem to be innocuous because he wasn't placing any value judgment on them, but was rather speaking from a perspective that he has observed and has seen as a kind of trend. If you object to the factual questions of the remark, then perhaps it would be best that you proved Prof. Hoppe wrong rather than having him be reprimanded for a remark that you did not like.
Enjoy your 14 minutes of fame....
Hopefully it will result in a formal investigation or two, costing you thousands of dollars in legal fees, hours of wasted time, and more stress than you can stand. That would be a darn shame, but at least I will have rid the internet of all that is "offensive." I'll feel much better about myself after that.