Discussion:
My Battle With the Thought Police
(too old to reply)
Philip Lewis
2005-06-12 09:57:39 UTC
Permalink
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html
My Battle With the Thought Police
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe


Readers of this site probably know about my ordeal at my university, which
has been covered quite extensively on this site and by the major mainstream
press. Now that major combat operations have ended (to employ a phrase used
by Bush in reference to Iraq...two years ago), I've had some time to reflect
on what happened, why, and whether and to what extent I responded properly.

And so here are my thoughts on this incident that took my career as a
professor of economics in a direction I would never had anticipated. Now
that the case is more-or-less settled, I no longer feel bound by legal
considerations to keep silent on important details. This article is the
first to disclose the full details of the case.



Las Vegas prides itself for its tolerance and so does UNLV, its university.
At the university, however, tolerance is selective. You may assert that
white heterosexual males are responsible for all of mankind's misery, that
Castro's Cuba is a great success story, that capitalism means exploitation,
or that most university professors are liberals because conservatives are
too stupid to teach. If anyone should complain about this, such complaint
will be dismissed outright.

And rightly so. After all, the university is committed to academic freedom.
Its faculty has the "freedom and an obligation &hellip (to) discuss and
pursue the faculty member's subject with candor and integrity, even when the
subject requires consideration of topics which may be politically, socially
or scientifically controversial. &hellip (a) faculty member&hellipshall not
be subjected to censorship or discipline by the University ... on grounds
that the faculty member has expressed opinions or views which are
controversial, unpopular or contrary to the attitudes of the
University&hellipor the community."

None of this applies to professors who dissent from socialist, statist, or
culturally left-wing view, however, as I would find out.

In March of 2004, during a 75-minute lecture in my Money and Banking class
on time preference, interest, and capital, I presented numerous examples
designed to illustrate the concept of time preference (or in the terminology
of the sociologist Edward Banfield of "present- and future-orientation"). As
one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they
typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time
preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted - as have many other
scholars - that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some
upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to
know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his
famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead."

During my lecture no question was raised. (You can hear the same lecture [
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/4.mp3 ], given some time later, on
the Mises Media server.) However, two days later an informal complaint was
filed by a student with the university's affirmative action "commissar." The
student claimed that he as a homosexual had been made to "feel bad" by my
lecture. Based on this "evidence" the commissar, who, as I would find out
only weeks later, was a former clergyman turned "certified" gay activist,
called me at home to inform me that he would shut down my class if I
continued making such remarks.

I agreed to meet the commissar in my office thinking that this would bring
matters to a quick end. The student would be informed about the nature of a
university and academic freedom, including his right to ask and challenge
his professor. Instead, the commissar lectured me on what and how I was to
teach my classes. I explained to him the difference between a professor and
a bureaucrat and that he was overstepping his bounds, but to no avail.
However, because the student had falsely claimed that my remarks had been
about "all" homosexuals, I agreed to explain the difference between "all"
and "average" statements during my next class.

In my next lecture I explained that when I say that Italians eat more
Spaghetti than Germans for instance this does not mean that every Italian
eats more Spaghetti than every German. It means that on the average Italians
eat more Spaghetti than Germans.

Upon this the student filed a "formal" complaint. I had not taken his
feelings seriously. He felt "hurt again;" and as he had learned from the
commissar, feeling bad twice constituted a "hostile learning environment"
(an offense that is not defined in the university by-laws). From then on the
commissar made the student's case his own. Every pretence of acting as a
neutral mediator was abandoned, and he became a prosecutor.

In April I was ordered to appear before an administrative committee
assembled by the commissar and to prove my statement. This was in clear
violation of university rules: not only is there no provision for any "truth
squad," but as bureaucrats the committee members were entirely unqualified
for such a task.

However, I naïvely provided the requested evidence. My request to have the
meeting taped was denied. During the hearing, which was conducted in a style
reminiscent of the interrogations of politically suspect academics in
communist countries or Nazi Germany, essentially only the commissar spoke.

My repeated request to hear witnesses was denied. One student, recommended
by the complainant, was later secretly interviewed, but because her
testimony contradicted what the commissar wanted to hear, it was suppressed.
Furthermore, in his indictment, which I would not see until November, the
commissar referred to a previous unrelated student complaint, but he
suppressed the information that this complaint had been dismissed as without
merit and actually resulted in an embarrassment for the university
administration.

The provided evidence was brushed aside, because some of it had also
allegedly appeared on anti-gay sites which I had never visited. Indeed,
whatever I or anyone else said was irrelevant because the commissar had
already found "proof" of my hostility in my writing.

In my book Democracy, The God That Failed [
http://www.mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P108C0.aspx ] I not
only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private
property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in
maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing
factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the
importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against
communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family
centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.

For instance, on p. 218, I wrote "in a covenant concluded among proprietors
and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property,
&hellip no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose
of the covenant ... such as democracy and communism." "Likewise, in a
covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be
no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with
this goal. &hellip (violators) will have to be physically removed from
society."

In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying
that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its
fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on
wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context
and omit the condition: in a covenant&hellip then they appear to advocate a
rights violation..

My praise of discrimination was part of a frontal attack against what is
sometimes called left-libertarianism - against the politics that equates
liberty with libertinism, multiculturalism, and so-called civil rights as
opposed to existence and enforcement of private-property rights. In
retaliation, to discredit me as a "fascist," a "racist," a "bigot," etc.,
the left-libertarian smear-bund has routinely distorted my views by quoting
the above passages out of context.

The commissar discovered these "quotes" - and voila! I was found guilty as
charged. (Characteristically, upon challenge the commissar proved unable -
also during a second hearing six months later - to cite on which page the
alleged quotes appeared.)

An indictment, recommending a letter of reprimand and forfeiture of a week's
pay, was forwarded to my dean, who neither accepted nor rejected it but sent
it to the provost. After waiting for more than 5 months, the provost acted
likewise.

In November, he instructed the university code officer, who had been a
member of the first inquisition committee, to send me the indictment, form
another committee and order me to show up for a second trial. The committee
was composed of the dean of natural sciences, the associate dean of the
hotel college, a biology professor and the president of the student
government. The code officer served as secretary and the commissar as
prosecutor. I was accompanied by a lawyer, in response to which the
university also sent a lawyer. No committee member had any knowledge of
economics.

My lawyer's request to have the meeting taped or have a court reporter
present was denied. After the student explained about his hurt feelings, my
lawyer asked where in the code a "hostile learning environment" was defined.
Neither the code officer nor the university lawyer could answer the question
because no such definition exists.

I read the above quoted passages regarding academic freedom and argued that
my contractually granted rights had been infringed upon. I had spoken about
my subject and beyond that I was not obliged to "prove" anything. In fact,
my statement was hardly "controversial" but utterly reasonable in light of
my adduced evidence. I again requested students be interviewed concerning my
alleged "hostility," but again the request was ignored. I offered several
student letters written on my behalf, but they were not admitted as
evidence.

The committee members asked few if any questions; only the dean contributed
some precious gems of political correctness. The most time was taken up by
the commissar. In the meantime he had gathered information about me and my
prominence and come to the conclusion that if he could silence me he could
silence anyone. He set out on a tirade against me that in the judgment of my
lawyer would have gotten him thrown out of any regular courtroom. After
ranting for almost half an hour even the university lawyer had enough and
told him to "Shut up," and when he continued, the lawyer admonished the
committee chair to cut him off.

Two months later, at the end of January 2005 the code officer called my
lawyer to inform him that the "peer" committee had affirmed the first
committee's "hostile environment" finding and would recommend to the provost
a letter of reprimand and forfeiture of my next merit increase. There might
be a little room for negotiation, but if I didn't accept the offer even more
serious punishment up to termination might be in the offing. My lawyer's
request to see the report was denied.

I rejected the offer and having until then been placed under a gag order,
finally started a counteroffensive. I was put in contact with the ACLU
Nevada, and though our political views are poles apart, the ACLU to its
eternal credit was principled enough to take on my "rightist" professor's
case. In addition, a prominent local attorney volunteered his services, and
within a few days the Mises Institute's public relations machinery began its
work on my behalf.

First, the ACLU sent a "letter of demand," requesting an immediate end to
the charade or the university would be taken to court, then local news
stories about the case appeared, and protest letters and angry calls began
to pour in to the university.

As a first result, on February 9th the provost sent me a "non-disciplinary
letter of instruction" - a far cry from a reprimand and monetary punishment.
But if this letter had been sent to calm the waters, the opposite occurred.
The "instructions" stood in patent contradiction to the bylaws on academic
freedom, as even a dimwit could recognize. Whatever academic reputation the
provost might have had before, the letter made him look like an invidious
fool.

A local affair escalated into a national and even international one, and a
wave of protests turned into a flood. The university had a public relations
disaster on its hands. Only ten days later - almost exactly one year after
the affair had started - the university president, at the order of the
chancellor of the entire university system, officially withdrew all charges
against me.

This was a moment of great personal triumph, yet some things remain undone:
the university has not apologized to me, no form of restitution has been
offered for a lost year of my work, and no one has been held accountable at
UNLV. To accomplish this, a trial would be necessary. While my lawyers agree
that I would prevail in court, another year or two of my life would be lost.
This cost is too high. The outpouring of world-wide support on my behalf and
the many uplifting and heartwarming letters are my satisfaction.

I have long regarded the political correctness movement as a threat to all
independent thought, and I am deeply concerned about the level of
self-censorship in academia. To counteract this tendency, I have left no
political taboo untouched in my teaching. I believed that America was still
free enough for this to be possible, and I assumed that my relative
prominence offered me some extra protection.

When I became a victim of the thought police, I was genuinely surprised, and
now I am afraid that my case has had a chilling effect on less established
academics. Still, it is my hope that my fight and ultimate victory, even if
they can not make a timid man brave, do encourage those with a fighting
spirit to take up the cudgels.

If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long
to go on the offensive.

April 12, 2005

Hans-Hermann Hoppe [send him mail], whom Lew Rockwell calls "an
international treasure," is distinguished fellow at the Ludwig von Mises
Institute and professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Democracy: The God That Failed [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684/lewrockwell/ ] is his
eighth book. Visit his website [ http://hanshoppe.com/ ].

Copyright © 2005 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Avenger
2005-06-12 10:59:34 UTC
Permalink
">
Post by Philip Lewis
If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long
to go on the offensive.
Absolutely. You should have filed a complaint against them in Federal Court
and have a jury decide it and where they can't suppress evidence. You'll
find that the average juror would easily side with you rather than this
bullshit you had to contend with in academia.
Post by Philip Lewis
April 12, 2005
Hans-Hermann Hoppe [send him mail], whom Lew Rockwell calls "an
international treasure," is distinguished fellow at the Ludwig von Mises
Institute and professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Democracy: The God That Failed [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684/lewrockwell/ ] is his
eighth book. Visit his website [ http://hanshoppe.com/ ].
Copyright © 2005 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Martin Pascal
2005-06-12 22:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avenger
">
Post by Philip Lewis
If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too
long
Post by Philip Lewis
to go on the offensive.
Absolutely. You should have filed a complaint against them in Federal Court
and have a jury decide it and where they can't suppress evidence. You'll
find that the average juror would easily side with you rather than this
bullshit you had to contend with in academia.
You are extremely correct in your saying but the man in question is
not to be congratulated. He say, I quote from Phil's quote: "While my
lawyers agree that I would prevail in court, another year or two of my
life would be lost. This cost is too high."

See this? "The cost is too high."

This is not the speech of a brave man. Only brave men for who the cost
is never too high can be full parts of the men's movement. Men who are
not brave will never even know the extent of the movement because they
will not contacted be by men who know.

Cowardice in the face of the enemy is not worthy of praise.
GL Fowler
2005-06-13 15:00:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:22:42 +0100, Martin Pascal
Post by Martin Pascal
Post by Avenger
">
Post by Philip Lewis
If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too
long
Post by Philip Lewis
to go on the offensive.
Absolutely. You should have filed a complaint against them in Federal Court
and have a jury decide it and where they can't suppress evidence. You'll
find that the average juror would easily side with you rather than this
bullshit you had to contend with in academia.
You are extremely correct in your saying but the man in question is
not to be congratulated. He say, I quote from Phil's quote: "While my
lawyers agree that I would prevail in court, another year or two of my
life would be lost. This cost is too high."
See this? "The cost is too high."
This is not the speech of a brave man. Only brave men for who the cost
is never too high can be full parts of the men's movement. Men who are
not brave will never even know the extent of the movement because they
will not contacted be by men who know.
Cowardice in the face of the enemy is not worthy of praise.
Sigh, "Armchair warrior??".
"Hero's are just those of us who were brave five minutes more."


"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
Meldon
2005-06-12 16:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Lewis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html
My Battle With the Thought Police
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Readers of this site probably know about my ordeal at my university, which
has been covered quite extensively on this site and by the major mainstream
press. Now that major combat operations have ended (to employ a phrase used
by Bush in reference to Iraq...two years ago), I've had some time to reflect
on what happened, why, and whether and to what extent I responded properly.
In addition, a similar model seems to be playing out in the press. Alone
these two examples are bad enough but combined, one has to think of the
possible implications. Take for example an arguably paranoid view of the
world coming to an end where a very limited number of individuals know the
facts. To those individuals, actions such as "make as much money as you
possibly can and damn the consequences", become obvious.

In other words, having knowledge of an impending and profound change could
possibly account for many of the oppressive forces we are seeing today.

Take almost every major socio-political debate taking place and what appears
common to them all is, they are utterly FUBAR! Energy, environment, law,
family, land use and so on through a never ending list of broken systems.

I suppose a simple and often repeated analogy of a sinking ship seems most
appropriate. A few people are aware of the reality and are doing everything
they can to get a hold of a life boat. The less the others know, the better.
Deceit is justified and such tactics as pretending the lifeboats are of no
major concern become "normal behaviour".

I could go on but hopefully you see the point.

Having said that, and assuming it's possible, I then wonder if those who are
aware of the truth are actually correct. To extend the analogy, those who
"know" the ship is sinking are incorrect in their belief that because the
ship is sinking, the demise of the crew is imminent. The ship sinking in the
middle of the ocean is much worse than the ship sinking or a coral reef next
to a tropical island.

Let's hope if the ship is indeed sinking, we are close to the island and not
in the middle of the ocean.
Martin Pascal
2005-06-12 22:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Lewis
Post by Philip Lewis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html
My Battle With the Thought Police
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Readers of this site probably know about my ordeal at my university, which
has been covered quite extensively on this site and by the major
mainstream
Post by Philip Lewis
press. Now that major combat operations have ended (to employ a phrase
used
Post by Philip Lewis
by Bush in reference to Iraq...two years ago), I've had some time to
reflect
Post by Philip Lewis
on what happened, why, and whether and to what extent I responded
properly.
In addition, a similar model seems to be playing out in the press. Alone
these two examples are bad enough but combined, one has to think of the
possible implications. Take for example an arguably paranoid view of the
world coming to an end where a very limited number of individuals know the
facts. To those individuals, actions such as "make as much money as you
possibly can and damn the consequences", become obvious.
In other words, having knowledge of an impending and profound change could
possibly account for many of the oppressive forces we are seeing today.
Take almost every major socio-political debate taking place and what appears
common to them all is, they are utterly FUBAR! Energy, environment, law,
family, land use and so on through a never ending list of broken systems.
I suppose a simple and often repeated analogy of a sinking ship seems most
appropriate. A few people are aware of the reality and are doing everything
they can to get a hold of a life boat. The less the others know, the better.
Deceit is justified and such tactics as pretending the lifeboats are of no
major concern become "normal behaviour".
I could go on but hopefully you see the point.
Having said that, and assuming it's possible, I then wonder if those who are
aware of the truth are actually correct. To extend the analogy, those who
"know" the ship is sinking are incorrect in their belief that because the
ship is sinking, the demise of the crew is imminent. The ship sinking in the
middle of the ocean is much worse than the ship sinking or a coral reef next
to a tropical island.
Let's hope if the ship is indeed sinking, we are close to the island and not
in the middle of the ocean.
Greece, in her dying days, saw the hope of Rome and passed on the
baton of civilisation.

The men of Rome, in her dying days, saw no hope in the barbarians.
They passed on no baton, but sat studying in their remotest villas as
civilisation perished around them. They knew that the Dark Ages had
nothing to offer and only fate would decide the future of man.

The Dark Ages ended with the Renaissance, with the genes of the Romans
emerging again into the light.

We have a choice. We can pass on our baton to other men, or we can
sink into the New Dark Age and know that, this time, the genes (which
so few of us pass to our descendants), may not save the world.

Here is my baton. I pass it to all men who have wits to receive it. I
curse all men who reject it.

Where is my baton? some ask.

It is in my every word. My every deed.
Society
2005-06-13 09:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Lewis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html
My Battle With the Thought Police
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Excellent article, Phil. Thanks for posting it.
This closing portion, IMO, is the biggest lesson
the good people should take away from
Post by Philip Lewis
[...] If I made one mistake, it was that I was
too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.
Heterophobes and man-haters often use Big Lie
techniques to oppress the rest of us. However,
just as effective as the Big Lie is the Incredible
Truth. For too long, Dr. Hoppe simply could
not believe the ugly truth was that the Establishment
has been co-opted by those of totalitarian wishes.
Until he finally grasped the truth of what his
antagonists were willing to try to get away with,
Dr. Hoppe was effectively disarmed and easily
victimized by his university establishment-sanctioned
tormentors.
--
"Justice" is upheld by men, not women.
Philip Lewis
2005-06-13 11:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Post by Philip Lewis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html
My Battle With the Thought Police
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Excellent article, Phil. Thanks for posting it.
This closing portion, IMO, is the biggest lesson
the good people should take away from
Post by Philip Lewis
[...] If I made one mistake, it was that I was
too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.
Heterophobes and man-haters often use Big Lie
techniques to oppress the rest of us. However,
just as effective as the Big Lie is the Incredible
Truth. For too long, Dr. Hoppe simply could
not believe the ugly truth was that the Establishment
has been co-opted by those of totalitarian wishes.
Until he finally grasped the truth of what his
antagonists were willing to try to get away with,
Dr. Hoppe was effectively disarmed and easily
victimized by his university establishment-sanctioned
tormentors.
Indeed and that is why we must continue to expose pc lunacy to the light of
day and subject it to the relentless ridicule that it deserves.

Phil
Post by Society
--
"Justice" is upheld by men, not women.
r***@yahoo.com
2005-06-13 16:33:33 UTC
Permalink
For too long, Dr. Hoppe simply could
not believe the ugly truth was that the Establishment
has been co-opted by those of totalitarian wishes.
Until he finally grasped the truth of what his
antagonists were willing to try to get away with,
Dr. Hoppe was effectively disarmed and easily
victimized by his university establishment-sanctioned
tormentors.


well, having experienced p.c. tyranny at a number of educational
institutions, i found that "couldn't believe it" ran a V distant
second, and functioned as a convenient excuse, to "wouldn't face it"

most of the silenced on american campuses -- including admin and
faculty -- are quite aware of the identity-totalitarianism taking place
around them, but the psycho-socio-economic pressure to "go along" is
enormous, and few are willing to confront these forces directly


why? well, because the thought police will make one's work, studies,
life etc a living hell if one shows open opposition, especially to
feminism

jeez, i recall sending a rant to the U of CA regents in the early
nineties, bringing them up to speed on the takeover of the academy by
ideological idjits

they musta gotta good laff outta my letter -- cause damn-sure nothing
in the UC system changed!

the inertia of campus-types, and their pre-fabricated ideologies, would
be hilarious if it weren't so pervasively mindkilling

the "barbarians" aren't at the gates -- they're already on the *inside*
of all our political and social institutions
Rick S.
2005-06-14 05:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
For too long, Dr. Hoppe simply could
not believe the ugly truth was that the Establishment
has been co-opted by those of totalitarian wishes.
Until he finally grasped the truth of what his
antagonists were willing to try to get away with,
Dr. Hoppe was effectively disarmed and easily
victimized by his university establishment-sanctioned
tormentors.
well, having experienced p.c. tyranny at a number of educational
institutions, i found that "couldn't believe it" ran a V distant
second, and functioned as a convenient excuse, to "wouldn't face it"
most of the silenced on american campuses -- including admin and
faculty -- are quite aware of the identity-totalitarianism taking place
around them, but the psycho-socio-economic pressure to "go along" is
enormous, and few are willing to confront these forces directly
why? well, because the thought police will make one's work, studies,
life etc a living hell if one shows open opposition, especially to
feminism
jeez, i recall sending a rant to the U of CA regents in the early
nineties, bringing them up to speed on the takeover of the academy by
ideological idjits
they musta gotta good laff outta my letter -- cause damn-sure nothing
in the UC system changed!
the inertia of campus-types, and their pre-fabricated ideologies, would
be hilarious if it weren't so pervasively mindkilling
the "barbarians" aren't at the gates -- they're already on the *inside*
of all our political and social institutions
Your experiences with the U of CA closely parallel my own, though I never
took the initiative to write a letter. My hat's off to you for doing so.
(I was there a bit earlier, during the early to mid-1980s, but PC tyranny
had already become well entrenched at my campus.)

I suppose I was one of those passive types who, after discovering who really
ran the show, just wanted to stay invisible, do my time, get the hell out,
and never look back. But since then I've learned you can't keep running
forever...eventually they'll corner you in some other walk of life, and you
will have nowhere to run, no place to hide.

It now seems to me far better to stand up, be counted, and let the chips
fall where they may, whatever the potential cost. Courage is its own
reward.

Hope I can remember that when the time comes.;-)

Rick
r***@yahoo.com
2005-06-20 15:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick S.
Post by Society
For too long, Dr. Hoppe simply could
not believe the ugly truth was that the Establishment
has been co-opted by those of totalitarian wishes.
Until he finally grasped the truth of what his
antagonists were willing to try to get away with,
Dr. Hoppe was effectively disarmed and easily
victimized by his university establishment-sanctioned
tormentors.
well, having experienced p.c. tyranny at a number of educational
institutions, i found that "couldn't believe it" ran a V distant
second, and functioned as a convenient excuse, to "wouldn't face it"
most of the silenced on american campuses -- including admin and
faculty -- are quite aware of the identity-totalitarianism taking place
around them, but the psycho-socio-economic pressure to "go along" is
enormous, and few are willing to confront these forces directly
why? well, because the thought police will make one's work, studies,
life etc a living hell if one shows open opposition, especially to
feminism
jeez, i recall sending a rant to the U of CA regents in the early
nineties, bringing them up to speed on the takeover of the academy by
ideological idjits
they musta gotta good laff outta my letter -- cause damn-sure nothing
in the UC system changed!
the inertia of campus-types, and their pre-fabricated ideologies, would
be hilarious if it weren't so pervasively mindkilling
the "barbarians" aren't at the gates -- they're already on the *inside*
of all our political and social institutions
Your experiences with the U of CA closely parallel my own, though I never
took the initiative to write a letter. My hat's off to you for doing so.
(I was there a bit earlier, during the early to mid-1980s, but PC tyranny
had already become well entrenched at my campus.)
I suppose I was one of those passive types who, after discovering who really
ran the show, just wanted to stay invisible, do my time, get the hell out,
and never look back. But since then I've learned you can't keep running
forever...eventually they'll corner you in some other walk of life, and you
will have nowhere to run, no place to hide.
It now seems to me far better to stand up, be counted, and let the chips
fall where they may, whatever the potential cost. Courage is its own
reward.
Hope I can remember that when the time comes.;-)
Rick
there's no shame in defeat, only in not fighting

b***@gmail.com
2005-06-20 13:42:47 UTC
Permalink
To hear about the other side of the story, read

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2005/02/last-words-on-hoppe.html

Bruno
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...