Re: PC slaves

Kinsella: “I was assuming arguendo that loding the complaint is not libertarian—because most of the defenders of Hoppe seem to agree that for whatever reason—contract, constitution, etc.—UNLV should not punish Hoppe.”

I don’t think that UNLV should punish Hoppe either, but I have not yet seen any very clear indication that by punishing him they would be violating his rights (by breach of contract or otherwise). When it comes to cases being fought in court, the difference between vices and crimes is important, yet nearly all of the commentary on Hoppe and his legal prospects seems to have glossed over this.

Kinsella: “As for the ACLU’s position, that’s just a quesiton of legal strategy or tactics. Real world, practical stuff.”

Do you think that “real world, practical stuff” is detached from the question of what rights Hoppe does or doesn’t actually have in the matter?

Advertisement

Help me get rid of these Google ads with a gift of $10.00 towards this month’s operating expenses for radgeek.com. See Donate for details.

Re: PC slaves

“He does have a contract,”

Sure, but like most academic contracts it’s unclear at best whether what is being done to him is actually excluded by any of the terms of his contracts. (Most academic contracts these days allow the administration a fair amount of leniency in punishing professors for violations of “discriminatory harassment policies.”) In any case, Kinsella didn’t just say that the University is breaching its contract with Hoppe in this specific case. He said that it’s “not libertarian” (i.e., promoting rights-violations) to endorse the actions of a student using a college disciplinary code to “punish” a professor “in this way”.

Another way to put it: Kinsella seems to be confusing violations of academic freedom (which are bad, but not necessarily rights-violating) with censorship of free speech (which is necessarily rights-violating). Maybe he’s not; maybe he’s just speaking loosely. But given that Hoppe’s defenders at the ACLU seem to be pushing the same confusion as an argument in court, it seems like there’s some good reasons to be a bit studious about being more precise.

“… and I must insist that, contrary to Kinsella’s statement, I never endorsed the student’s actions.”

Sure. I never intended to suggest that you did—and I’m sorry if that’s what I seemed to be implying.

Advertisement

Help me get rid of these Google ads with a gift of $10.00 towards this month’s operating expenses for radgeek.com. See Donate for details.