BREAKING: Walter Block to Sue His University for Libel

Libertarian scholar and economist Walter Block has just posted the following notice at LewRockwell.com:

Seeking lawyer to sue my university for libel

I am seeking a lawyer to sue my university, Loyola New Orleans, for libel. This problem all started out when the NY Times falsely accused me of supporting slavery. Thereupon, the president of my university, Fr. Kevin Wildes, SJ, published a letter in the school paper expressing “dismay” that I would take this position. He did not consult me about this beforehand, otherwise I could have cleared this up. I am already suing the NY Times for libel, and now wish to do so regarding Fr. Wildes, SJ, the trustees of the university who have not answered my request for justice (see below), and 18 Loyola faculty members who published a similar letter also in the school paper.

Hopefully, the lawyer will undertake this lawsuit on a contingency basis. I would prefer a

libertarian attorney, if at all possible, but this is not necessary. If you fit this bill, and/or know of people who do, please get in touch with me at wblock@loyno.edu and/or ask them to do so.

Here is some background information on this matter (the links to the letters in the Maroon, the school paper no longer function; I have asked that this be corrected, but the editors have not seen fit to respond to my request either):

Memo

Date: 10/17/14

To: The members of the board of trustees of Loyola University New Orleans

pres@loyno.edu; progers@loyno.edu; randerson13@fordham.edu; william.blase@att.com; jbowler@fairfield.edu; mbraden@saintpeters.edu; bobbrown@paradigm-usa.com; EChase@dillard.edu; derby@neworleansbaseball.com; frank.kennedy.1@bc.edu; bjanke@bakerdonelson.com; james.mcbride@capitalone.com;jmahoney@lifestrats.com; okeefejo@bc.edu; presidentquinn@scranton.edu;rsalmi@shc.edu; psoukup@scu.edu; jfinan@fmolhs.org; dcfaustmd@yahoo.com; angtat@comcast.net; robert@leblancandco.com; kpoorman@pspcapital.com; jsimmons@quantumcapitalpartners.com

From: Prof. Walter E. Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Dux Academicus award winner, 2007

I have been threatened on campus with physical harm by two young African-American males. I now fear for my physical safety on campus and off campus as well. One of these young men said to me something to this effect: “You’re the professor who thinks slavery wasn’t that bad. We’re going to get you for that.” They then sneered at me and walked off before I could try to convince them that I had never said that, that I totally disagreed with that pernicious perspective, that I had been misquoted entirely out of context by the New York Times, by Fr. Kevin Wildes, SJ and by 18 faculty members of Loyola University.

I am now writing to you with the request that you use your good offices to ameliorate this situation; to bring me back insofar as is possible to the status quo ante, before my good name became linked with so despicable a viewpoint. I make this request of you both as a matter of justice because I am entirely innocent of these charges, and, also, as a matter personal safety. Thanks to the president of our university (Maroon, February 6, 2014) and to 18 faculty members at Loyola (Maroon, February 6, 2014) who made this specific charge, I am now known on campus as a person who thinks slavery was “not so bad.”

For weeks after the publication of these two letters in the Maroon, I feared that some ignorant person would engage in assault and battery on my person as a result of their acts. I had reported this concern of mine to the Loyola University Police Department under complaint #0736 on March 1, 2014. In the event, one day later, I was indeed threatened, as mentioned above. I registered a complaint about this to the New Orleans Police Department on March 2, 2014 (complaint # C-03185-14) and added a report of this new occurrence to my initial complaint to the LUPD. Should I suffer actual physical violence in the future, I will hold Fr. Wildes, S.J. and the 18 signatories of their letter morally culpable for inciting a mob mentality on campus against me.

How did it happen that these important members of the Loyola community decided to make these fallacious charges? It all began when The New York Times interviewed me about libertarianism. One of the issues discussed concerned slavery. I maintained that the only reason slavery was an abomination was that it was compulsory; innocent people were abducted, kidnapped, and forced against their will into servitude. Had this been done on a fully voluntary basis, a total and complete hypothetical situation if ever there was one, then and only then would slavery have been “not so bad.” The New York Times’ interpretation? Block thinks that actual slavery as practiced in the 19th century and before was “not so bad.” But I was trying to probe WHY slavery was such an abomination. I contended that it had nothing to do with picking cotton, singing songs, eating gruel, etc. Rather, it was due only, and solely, to the fact that the institution of slavery was compulsory.

I later found a quote from Frederick Douglass (a 19th century equivalent of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X) saying much the same thing, albeit far more eloquently:

“My feelings were not the result of any marked cruelty in the treatment I received; they sprang from the consideration of my being a slave at all. It was slavery, not its mere incidents I hated. I had been cheated. I saw through the attempt to keep me in ignorance. I saw that slaveholders would have gladly made me believe that they were merely acting under the authority of God in making a slave of me and in making slaves of others, and I felt to them as to robbers and deceivers. The feeding and clothing me well could not atone for taking my liberty from me.” — Growing in knowledge. – Frederick Douglass, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass: From 1817-1882 (published 1882)

Namely, the “mere incidents” of slavery, picking cotton, eating gruel, singing songs, had nothing to do with the viciousness and depravity of the “curious institution.” Rather, it was the fact that the slaves were forced into that status that was the problem.

Of course, the New York Times also bears some responsibility for this predicament I am now enmeshed in, but I contend that were it not for these two subsequent letters to the Maroon, my situation on and off campus would be much safer.

Did it not occur to Fr. Wildes SJ and the 18 faculty members to first approach me to verify what I had actually said before verbally attacking me? In denying me this common courtesy they have perpetuated misinformation and exposed me to threats of physical harm. Their rush to condemn evidences a major lapse in academic integrity and a total disregard for fair play in intellectual discourse. This process continues. Prof. Hughey, in the March 21, 2014 issue of the Maroon goes so far as to assert the following:
“I find it hard to understand how —in a time when one of your own faculty members — Walter Block — openly defends segregation and has suggested that slavery was ‘not so bad’ — you can decide to let go one of the more robust teachers and scholars of an antithetical and empirically grounded position on race, slavery and segreation (sic).”
Thanks to the scurrilous letters of Fr. Wildes, SJ and that group of 18, my name is further dragged through the mud. If this were just an academic debate, I could take it. I have been criticized in the literature many times before. I have a thick skin. But this is an issue that far transcends mere academic dialogue. It reaches to a hostile working environment, and to actual threats against my physical safety.
Was I president of Loyola University, and one of the members of my faculty was quoted in the New York Times to the effect that slavery was “not so bad,” I would have immediately called him into my office and said something along the lines of “Have you lost your mind? Tell me that you were misquoted, please!” Then, when this hypothetical professor not only claimed precisely that, but further, offered evidence for that claim with a long paper trail of articles in refereed journals, instead of expressing “dismay” at this professor, as Fr. Wildes, SJ did of me, I would have defended him against the New York Times. Fr. Wildes, SJ did none of this. He never spoke to me once about this, despite my numerous requests of him that he do so.
Why am I writing to you, the board of trustees of Loyola University? I full well realize that you are busy men and women. I do so for several reasons. First, I have exhausted all other means open to me within the university in my quest for justice. To wit, (1) I have attempted to put my case before the University Police and the Office of Emergency Management office; I could only file a report with the former; the latter declined to meet with me nor would they allow me to file a complaint with them. (2) I went to the Ombudsman, with a request that he set up a meeting for me with Fr. Wildes, SJ, with the 18 faculty members who also unfairly condemned me for supposedly supporting slavery, and with the members of the Diversity Task Force who found me guilty of racism and sexism (also on a hearsay basis) several years ago. The Ombudsman declined my latter two requests, and was unsuccessful with the first. (3) I went to the reconciliation committee, and failed there, again, on all three counts. (4) I took my case to the Faculty Senate, and was unsuccessful one more time. (5) I asked both Provost Manganaro, and former Loyola President James Carter, SJ to try to set up a meeting with me with Fr. Wildes, SJ to discuss this matter in a civil manner; neither succeeded. (6) I wrote a letter to Fr. Wildes, SJ, attached, but he has not replied to me. Second, we are now undertaking a $100 million fundraising effort, Faith in the Future: The Campaign for Loyola University New Orleans. The last thing I want is more heightened negative publicity (I am already suing the New York Times for libel) at such an important epoch in our school’s history. Despite having been mistreated, I still love this university. Third, you are my last best hope within the academic community to right this wrong.
I now make several specific requests of you:

1. That you use your good offices to convince Fr. Wildes, SJ that the appropriate course of action for him to take is to renounce his article in the Maroon, and to publicly apologize to me for publishing it.

2. That you require of Fr. Wildes, SJ that he reopen my condemnation by the Diversity Task Force of 2008. No member of our academic community should ever be condemned without being able to give his side of the story; to launch a defense; to question his accusers. I have no objection to being tried for this supposed thought crime of mine. But, I really would like to be tried before being found guilty. I don’t believe in any statute of limitations on justice. Otherwise, reparations for slavery, for the Holocaust, would be unjustified.

Re hostile work environment, denial of academic freedom, physical danger

To date neither Fr. Wildes, SJ, nor any of these fellow 18 faculty colleagues of mine have seen fit to apologize for their libelous remarks about me. I feel that my academic freedom has been violated. Thanks to their actions, their incitement, their libels, I am no longer as free to pursue my academic career of teaching, researching, writing and publishing. I feel they have placed me in a hostile work environment and in actual physical danger. My reputation has been desecrated on campus.

What to do about that letter in the Maroon penned by 18 of my fellow faculty members? It would be a clear violation of their academic freedom to “order” them to retract their libelous and incitement-filled comments. I certainly urge no such course of action.

The best way, in my opinion, to deal with their call to “condemn” me is to do exactly as they suggest. They ask that the Loyola University community “condemn and censure (me) for (my) recurring public assaults on the values of Loyola University, its mission…” But what they have in mind, extrapolating from how the Diversity Task Force treated me in 2008 (see below in the reference section) is to do so behind closed doors. I speculate on the basis of this extrapolation that did they have their ‘druthers, they would gather several “scholars” of their ilk and find me guilty of supporting slavery.

In my view, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let us by all means implement their proposal. Let us have a university-wide open hearing to decide if I am to be condemned and censured for my views on slavery. I ask you, the trustees, to appoint a three judge jury or panel to hear from any or all of the 18 signatories, or from anyone else, who is willing to offer evidence in support of this contention that I think slavery “not so bad.” But then, also, allow me to tell my side of the story; to cross examine them, and to be cross examined by them. Then, when my name is cleared as I have no doubt it will be, and the publication and promulgation of the findings of this panel were publicized, this would go a long way toward ensuring my safety on and off campus. I full well realize that in this paragraph I am requesting you to make up a new process out of whole cloth, completely outside of the faculty handbook. That document, the faculty handbook, utterly failed me in the case of the Diversity Task Force. I see no reason why justice would be done to me in this case, were we to be limited to our faculty handbook. In effect, I am asking that the faculty handbook be modified so as to incorporate a process appropriate to the quandary I now find myself enmeshed in. No longer should faculty members be found guilty of anything without being offered a chance to defend themselves.

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that in a conspiracy, each party is entirely guilty for the entire damage, even though every member may have only contributed a part of it. So, in a sense it is moot as to who is the inciter: The New York Times, Fr. Wildes or the group of 18. They are all fully responsible for any results of their acts in my view if my understanding of the laws is correct. I am determined to seek justice in all three cases.

It is my understanding that in addition to being President of Loyola University, Fr. Wildes, SJ is also a member of the faculty. In this latter role he, also, has academic freedom, and I would not want my call to deal with him on this matter to be interpreted as my request that his academic freedom be in any way curtailed (although as a faculty colleague, I think he should at least have the decency to reply to my offer to debate him on these issues). However, academic freedom only stretches so far. I do not think it covers incitement. Secondly, Fr. Wildes SJ did sign his letter as president of the university. As such, he is a member of the administration, not only the faculty, and does not in this role have academic freedom, in my possibly mistaken interpretation.

It is time to conclude this letter. Please do respond. You are the leaders of our university, and I have no one else to whom to appeal inside its environs.

Yours truly,

Prof. Walter E. Block

References:

Block is accused by New York Times of thinking slavery “not so bad”:

Tanenhaus, Sam and Jim Rutenberg. 2014. “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance.” January 26; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?hp&_r=4

Block’s reply to the New York Times:

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign.” January 30; http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=473740&preview=true

March 25, 2009. New Orleans, LA. Loyola University New Orleans, Economics Club. “Is the capitalist system guilty of racism, sexism? No.: Walter E. Block responds to his politically correct critics, defending against charges of racism and sexism.

http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv;
----
For more on the controversy see

 THE WALTER BLOCK CONTROVERSY