Another Economist Gets the Larry Summers Treatment
By Peter Klein on Nov 12, 2008 in Education
This time it’s our old friend Walter Block who, during a Q&A session after a lecture at Loyola College in Baltimore, suggested that part of the black-white and male-female wage gaps might be explained by differences in productivity. The reaction from the usual campus quarters was swift and sure, culminating in a public statement from the College President condemning Block’s remarks (which, of course, he hadn’t heard). What’s interesting in this case is not the vapid response from the campus thought police, but its duplicity. A strongly worded “apology,” claiming to speak for the economics department and the campus club that sponsored the letter, appeared in the student newspaper. Actually, according to my sources, the letter was written by a single economics faculty member (helped by the campus diversity czar), with no authority to speak for colleagues. The department chair, in particular, found Block’s statements reasonable and the apology ridiculous.
Remember, children, “diversity” at American college campuses means “whatever campus diversity officials believe to be true.”
Speaking of campus antics, Stanley Fish has a new book.
Well if he’d just stopped at productivity, that would be one thing. If you read the linked article, Walter says he told the audience that it was differences in male/female IQ that explained it. I don’t buy that answer and am not convinced of the supposed evidence for it. Beyond that, Walter should have known what was going to happen when he said that. He isn’t getting anything he wasn’t willing to deal with when he said what he said.
Steve Horwitz | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Perhaps Prof. Horwitz can enlighten us on his skepticism? I’m sure he’s familiar with the underlying science. I detect more than a hint of PC in his objection. His support of Walter Block is also encouraging, I must say. He’s basically saying, “the bitch had it coming.” How progressive.
Dan Mahoney | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
It should be easily defendable on evolutionary grounds, not? Women and minorities have long been hampered in the number of socio-economic opportunities available to them. It takes time for them to close the gap with white males. IQ might just be one measure of that, or not. It’s not an exact science.
jason | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Jason’s explanation is one I think has value. I’m not sure I’d call it “evolutionary,” but to the extent women and minorities have had fewer opportunities, it can certainly hamper their productivity and thus affect their wages. I’m skeptical whether IQ actually measures this, but the underlying process is sensible.
And as for Dan, call it what you want, but I think the argument that there are underlying inherent differences that matter among races is not only incorrect but offensive. I’m happily willing to take the label “politically correct” if that means calling out offensive arguments when I see them. I’m not trying to shut anyone up, just calling it for what I see it. Criticism is not censorship.
And I didn’t say he “had it coming.” I said that anyone who makes that argument does so knowing full well what a set of possible consequences might be. Walter’s a smart man. He knows that those sorts of arguments are likely to provoke precisely the response he got. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it quite on purpose. Judging by his lack of apology for it, and for his admirable consistency in repeating the argument to the press, I think that seems about right.
In other words, he wasn’t raped. He was looking to get laid.
And the comparison to Larry Summers will be valid when Walter has any actual consequences to suffer other than being called names by people who he probably doesn’t give a damn about any way.
Steve Horwitz | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
To believe that the question of whether there are things like racial differences is “offensive” is quite frankly anti-scientific, if not outright bizarre. I am glad Prof. Horwitz is proud to adopt the label of PC, because if he seriously thinks that the argument put forth by Jason isn’t question-begging (why, exactly, have women and minorities had fewer opportunities?), then I can think of more appropriate, but less friendly, labels. So we’ll leave it at that.
Dan Mahoney | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
I think Dan’s argument, especially the claim that Jason’s argument is question-begging, pretty much speaks for itself, so I too will leave it at that.
Steve Horwitz | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
Steve, the phony economics department letter and the president’s letter weren’t available online, so I couldn’t link to them, and I think that may have made you miss my point. Regardless of what you think of Walter’s remarks, I’m sure you’d agree that the response was totally over the top. So, here are the appropriate texts. First, the letter in the student paper claiming to come from the economics department:
First, as I explained, the letter wasn’t written by the economics department, but by a single angry (and dishonest) faculty member. Second, note the specious reasoning in paragraph three. Has the writer never heard of unobserved heterogeneity? (BTW I certainly hope Walter didn’t claim that wages reflect “average productivity,” rather than marginal productivity; presumably the anonymous writer means differences across groups in the marginal productivity of the average worker.) Third, is the purpose of scientific research in economics to “overcome” “the existing gender and racial injustice in America”? One wonders what the anonymous writer teaches in his or her classes.
Now read the president’s letter:
Note the hidden subtext of this letter from the university’s chief executive officer: the college “welcome[s] students, faculty and guest speakers of all academic and political perspectives,” unless they espouse views inconsistent with “diversity,” which of course doesn’t mean intellectual diversity, but a particular set of values held by those who run the university. “I encourage all of you to continue to think critically and to engage in discussions with your classmates, colleagues and friends about the important role diversity plays in our community.” Of course, “thinking critically” about diversity does not include questioning, in any way, the dogma handed down by university officials about “diversity.”
Peter G. Klein | Nov 12, 2008 | Reply
It seems that liberals, whether they are pro-market or anti-market, are fundamentally closed-minded. Simple question: were women “denied opportunities” as hunters back in the day because of patriarchy and discrimination by male cavemen? Seriously, who really believes such rubbish?
Dan Mahoney | Nov 13, 2008 | Reply
Steve, Walter says he was misquoted in that article, and that if any male-female IQ difference even exists, it is negligible.
Tom Woods | Nov 16, 2008 | Reply
Surely, there is now sufficient data that show females and males, on average, have different kinds of brains that match up with different occupational preferences. IQ is beside the point. Neuroscience isn’t.
tom merle | Nov 17, 2008 | Reply
I second Tom. Having had professor Block as a teacher and discussed this topic at length in class, IQ has never been his explanation of the wage gap between men and women.
Vedran Vuk | Nov 24, 2008 | Reply
Steve Horwitz is in error when he says “Well if he’d (that is, me, Walter Block) just stopped at productivity, that would be one thing. If you read the linked article, Walter says he told the audience that it was differences in male/female IQ that explained it.” I did *not* sat that. In any case, didn’t Horwitz already apologize for misconstruing what I said?
walter block | Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Steve Horwitz is in error when he says “Well if he’d (that is, me, Walter Block) just stopped at productivity, that would be one thing. If you read the linked article, Walter says he told the audience that it was differences in male/female IQ that explained it.” I did *not* sat that. In any case, didn’t Horwitz already apologize for misconstruing what I said? Tom Woods and Vedran Vuk have it exactly right. Thanks to Peter Klein for his contribution.
walter block | Dec 5, 2008 | Reply