Search News


Browse Archives

News

When Austrian Economics and Jesuit Theology Don't Mix

November 19, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It's a safe bet that a lecture combining free-market economics, gender and wage gaps will generate attention on an average college campus. Add race and IQ to the equation, and it's all but certain to explode in controversy.

And that's what happened when Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University New Orleans, a Jesuit institution, gave a talk this month, "Injustices in the Politics and Economics of Social Justice," at Loyola College in Maryland, a fellow Jesuit institution.

By his own account, Block discussed the gap in wages between males and females and explained it as mainly a side effect of the "asymmetric effects of marriage." In an explanatory post written at a Web site devoted to the "Austrian school" of libertarian thought, Block wrote: "This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion’s share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care."

He then continued on to a discussion of men's and women's productivity, arguing that males were more likely to be at either extreme of achievement while females tended toward the middle.

It was only in the question-and-answer session, he said, that someone asked him about the wage disparity between whites and blacks. In his response, although he "was very careful to say that the cause was a matter of dispute," Block said the "politically correct answer is that lower black productivity is due to slavery, Jim Crow legislation, poor treatment of African Americans in terms of schooling, etc. The politically incorrect explanation was supplied by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their book The Bell Curve: lower black IQs."

While Block said there was no major stir at the time, by the weekend Loyola College of Maryland's president, the Rev. Brian F. Linnane, had sent an e-mail to students referencing the lecture.

"Many in attendance found some of Professor Block's comments both insensitive and incorrect, and have shared their concerns with members of the economics department and others throughout the college," Father Linnane wrote.

"While economics faculty members have issued a response and apology, I feel it is important at this time to remind all members of the Loyola community that while our commitment to academic freedom ensures that we welcome students, faculty and guest speakers of all academic and political perspectives, we will not endorse or support racism, sexism or any other form of intolerance.

"We are a Jesuit institution, and as such, a respect for diversity is one of our defining values, and an essential component in our commitment to preparing men and women to become leaders in a rapidly changing world made all the more rich by the many cultures and viewpoints that shape it."

Perhaps almost as notable as the president's direct response was the condemnation issued jointly by the college's economics department and the Adam Smith Society student group, which is named for the 18th-century free-market economist. In an unsigned letter to the student newspaper, members of the department wrote, "It is important to note that the remark was offensive not just because it was racially insensitive, but because it was erroneous and indicated poor-quality scholarship. There is ample scholarly evidence that, after adjusting for productivity-related characteristics (e.g., years of schooling, work experience, union and industry status, etc.) a considerable wage gap remains."

Block, who is also a senior fellow at the Austrian-oriented Ludwig von Mises Institute, said in an interview that Smith would be "spinning in his grave," and that he may include the incident in a book he is writing on racial and sexual discrimination, to be published by the Institute.

At least at his home institution in New Orleans, he said, there was no resistance from faculty. "The only people I'm getting in trouble with so far are the politically correct thought police at Maryland," he noted, adding that he was willing to debate members of the Loyola College faculty on the issues.

It wasn't the discussion on gender and wages that sparked the outcry, Block noted -- only the mention of race and IQ at the end, what he called "the third rail of American academia."

"Just mentioning the word 'IQ,' it's as if you use the F word in polite society," he remarked.

"Loyola's core values include a commitment to integrity and honesty, where freedom of thought and expression are valued and protected," said Courtney Jolley, director of public relations at the Baltimore institution.

"The college supports this by striving to foster respect for others and their work, and supporting a sharing of varied opinions which helps students refine their own ideas. But there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom from criticism. Loyola encourages the continued exercise of freedom of speech as an example of academic discourse, and the college has not apologized for having Dr. Block on campus to speak. But, Loyola community members have the right to comment on differences between their beliefs and positions and statements made by those who speak on campus."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on When Austrian Economics and Jesuit Theology Don't Mix

  • Posted by Mommy on November 19, 2008 at 7:45am EST
  • Is that really all Professor Block said? If so, it sounds to me like he merely summarized the various theories that have been put forth, not advocated for any of them. Is it now the case that certain ideas cannot even be mentioned without subjecting a person who does not even advocate for them to ostracism? What has the academy come to??

  • Black IQ
  • Posted by Doctor on November 19, 2008 at 8:55am EST
  • He could have refuted the theory of lower IQ in Blacks. I wish he had instead of just putting it on the table.

  • Posted by Richard Hennessey on November 19, 2008 at 9:41am EST
  • Doesn't the identification of a point of view as the "politically correct" one suggest that it is not the really correct one? And then doesn't the identification of the opposite point of view as the "politically incorrect" one suggest that it is the really correct one?

  • Posted by Publius on November 19, 2008 at 9:41am EST
  • The headline of this article is grossly misleading. This controversey has nothing to do with so-called Austrian Economics, but rather with a reference to the work of a psychologist (Hernstein) and a public intellectual (Murray) by a self-desribed devotee of the Austrian school of economics. Hernstein and Murray are not associated with the Austrian school of economic thought. The Austrian school of economic thought that grew out of an early 20th century debate in Vienna about central planning with scholars such as Mises and Hayek takes issue with some of methodological and epistemological approaches employed by neo-classical economists. These Austrian economists argued that neo-classical economics underestimated the role of spontanaeity and individual action in their accounts of economic outcomes. They were arguably the precursors for some of the contemporary critique of neo-classical economists by behavioralists and experimentalists. How that rarefied strain of economic thought could somehow be logically connected to issues of race and intelligence is baffling. Please change the headline.

  • Posted by Joe on November 19, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • Amen, Publius. The controversy was all about the mention of "The Bell Curve" and had absolutely nothing to do with Austrian economics.

  • the crux of the article...
  • Posted by R.C. , Grad Student at Texas A&M University on November 19, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • ...is precisely what Richard H. indicates. The implication is that Murray's position in the Bell Curve is correct; which is patently incorrect.

  • hard to tell
  • Posted by Ricardo J. on November 19, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • We can't tell whether Block gave an implicit endorsement to either explanation unless we were there to see the lecture.

    The way this article is written it seems that Block is saying there is much debate about the issue and that several different explanations have been proposed. He pointed out that some possible explanations can be spoken of freely while others can get you in trouble for even mentioning them.

    Isn't this article evidence that he was correct in his latter assertion?

  • Posted by jackiecox333@mac.com on November 19, 2008 at 2:40pm EST
  • freedom of speech iritates the freeloaders

  • Posted by Rob on November 19, 2008 at 2:40pm EST
  • What if Professor Block does believe that the average Black IQ is lower than that of other groups? Does he not have a right to express an opinion on a topic that has not been resolved? So what if it does hurt the feelings of some. Many discussions on campus hurt the feelings of somebody. Apparently only politically correct feelings are not allowed to be hurt.

  • Posted by Roger on November 19, 2008 at 4:40pm EST
  • There is ample evidence for a racial effect on IQ, although probably not to the degree that was argued in The Bell Curve. And IQ correlates very well with income - what the guy said is only incorrect because he implicitly argued that the ENTIRE wage gap is due to the race/IQ link.

  • In general conversation...
  • Posted by Caliban Darklock on November 19, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • When you say "the politically correct answer is X, and the politically incorrect answer is Y", this can in almost every case be reliably translated into:

    "People like to say X, but the truth is Y."

    A professor should have known the statement would be interpreted that way, whether it was what he meant or not.

  • I wouldn't say "nothing" to do with it...
  • Posted by John J. Ronald , Librarian I at Teaxs Woman's University on November 19, 2008 at 5:20pm EST
  • Austrian Economics as propogated by the Von Mises Institute isn't so innocent in this as some commentators here wish to maintain. The Von Mises Institute has a history of adopting a pro-Confederacy stance and asserting the Civil War had more to do with tarrifs and just about any economic issue they can think of EXCEPT slavery. To assume Professor Block is probably in agreement with The Bell Curve authors isn't much of a stretch. His remarks have a subtext that isn't as innocent as it may appear on the surface to the uninitiated. The underlying ideology is very much at variance with the social-justice oriented aspects of Jesuit theology, especially those following Liberation theology.

  • Posted by jl at Student at the University of Chicago on November 19, 2008 at 6:45pm EST
  • I'm curious, at what point did the University prove that what Prof. Block said was incorrect? Although they do assert that "many in attendance found some of Professor Block’s comments both insensitive and incorrect," they never actually establish if he was, in fact, correct. People have a right to their own interpretation, not to their own facts. And no where did I see them bother to try dispute the facts he laid down. Simply controlling for "years of schooling, work experience, union and industry status, etc" and comparing it to pay does not actually measure IQ disparity and wage disparity. It is the intellectual equivalent of a bait and switch; the only thing listed that I would imagine has a high correlation with IQ would be years of schooling, but even there it is tenuous at best.

    I must ask, when did Richard Hernstein, and, I presume from the tenor the piece, Arthur Jensen become intellectual heretics? Have we decided that psychometrics is the devils study?

    I guess there are just some pieties too holy to question. It's like Christian organizations have a history of not supporting free speech or something...

  • Posted by Andrew G. on November 19, 2008 at 8:35pm EST
  • This does not seem to warrant an outcry. What Block said is true, IQ is politically incorrect and environmental factors are politically correct explanations. It does not seem to me from the article that Block was trying to convince the audience which one was correct. Maybe Block's implied position deserves criticism, but certainly not a letter from the President.

  • Posted by PC on November 19, 2008 at 9:40pm EST
  • If IQ is a social construct (rather than measuring a biological certainty), then Block's PC and PIC answers correlate.

    In the end, if the quote in the article is accurate, then Block truly was just summarizing too positions: the one that is most liked and the one which remains controversial.

  • Posted by Doug on November 20, 2008 at 6:05am EST
  • "The Von Mises Institute has a history of adopting a pro-Confederacy stance and asserting the Civil War had more to do with tarrifs and just about any economic issue they can think of EXCEPT slavery." So? What does that have to do with anything? Even Lysander Spooner, one of the most outspoken opponents of slavery and proponents of abolition, said that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Many historians have also argued that slavery's role in causing the Civil War was not as important as people assume. What does that have to do with race and IQ?

  • Socially Incompetent
  • Posted by James Joyce on November 20, 2008 at 11:30pm EST
  • In general, the "Lew Rockwell libertarians" are all very smart people whom I agree with most of the time, but almost all of them are socially clueless.

    He goes to a college campus to give a lecture, puts the Bell Curve theory of IQ out there, and he's so shocked that people got angry?

    He couldn't have said something like, "There's the theory which states that blacks have low IQs, which is a pretty horrible theory that I hope isn't correct, and the theory that it's due to years of oppression and economic disadvantage, which seems more likely and more palatable."

    When the LRC crowd pulls stunts like this, it undermines the entire libertarian movement. It makes it easy for people to associate libertarianism with bigotry, which is the very opposite of the truth.

    Block and friends have to learn that humans aren't coolly rational creature who read nothing into anything you say, and only take your words at face value. Most modern young people are vitriolically opposed to racism, and thank god for that. Is it really such an outrage that their guttural hatred of it makes them sensitive to comments like this?

  • Posted by C. J. Gradwell on November 21, 2008 at 3:00pm EST
  • Correct me if I'm out to lunch, but I was under the impression that the black/white IQ gap is a firmly established fact. The major issues, I believe, are the extent to which social environment affects the gap and to what degree it can be reduced through policy interventions (two distinct questions!). None of this is relevant to the point Prof. Block raises, namely, that black/white IQ gap in the current population may be an important factor in the current black/white achievement gap.

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on November 26, 2008 at 1:30pm EST
  • He offered two common viewpoints, neither of which he invented and neither of which he expounded. Wasn't there a time when universities championed free debate and diverse opinions? Come to think of it there was no debate or opinion. He should have offered a third opinion, that racism is the result of a Freemason/Opus Dei conspiracy to enslave the world. Catholicism, after all, is a politically correct target.

  • Posted by Ben on November 30, 2008 at 6:20am EST
  • The Bell Curve was unfairly ridiculed in the press because it challenged the egalitarian dogma. It actually stands up pretty well.

  • Block's area is not IQ
  • Posted by schvenzlerman on December 3, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Having not performed research in that area, he thus would not (and did not) opine on whether the African race have lower IQ's on average. That is a matter for other academics to pursue.

    What he said was that wage disparity between Africans and, say, far east Asian groups, must arise from lower productivity because the market would otherwise rush in to hire them in greater numbers in order to capture what represents profit potential.

    Think of a Jain college educated programmer versus a high school drop out from the worst neighborhood in North Philadelphia. There are many reasons why productivity is lower generally. IQ is merely one possible element and Block did not present it as his own thought.

  • Link to Block's Lecture
  • Posted by edward s on December 5, 2008 at 9:10am EST
  • I have personally attended a similar lecture by Dr Block.

    He made it a point to mention that he was not a Sociologist or a Psychologist. He had done empirical research into the male/female wage gap and found that single women and single men tended to make the same amount of money. (His study was done in Canada.) Married men and married women do not.

    According to Block, this is a direct consequence of opportunity cost. Women, for whatever sociological reasons that Block doesn't portend to explain, do the lionshare of cooking, cleaning, housework, etc. Every minute they spend on these activities has a cost of not being able to be productive in the workplace. This is the so-called asymetric effect of marriage.

    It is up to the psychologists and sociologists to figure out why this is and if something should be done about it, instead of simply chalking up wage discrepancies to the so called "glass ceiling" and male discrimination.

    In the talk I attended, I asked about the Black / White pay gap. Again, Block did not have an explanation, but merely told us a few theories that were floating around out there in academia including an IQ differential. This was one of a few theories he mentioned. You can listen to the talk here:
    http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Block4.mp3
    Economic law is such that if two groups of equally productive individuals are paid different sums, entrepreneurs have an incentive to hire the lesser paid individuals to maximize their profits. Over time, the two groups will tend toward equal pay. In effect, if there were women that were drastically underpaid and just as productive as a man in the same position, an entrepreneur would hire them away and gain a competitive advantage by so doing.