Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Academic Freedom Controversy

Academic Freedom Controversy

During a lecture in a course on Money & Banking, Hoppe hypothesized that homosexuals will generally display shorter time preference for capital consumption because they tend not to have biological heirs, and thus have a lesser incentive to engage in long-term saving. One of Hoppe's students characterized this statement as derogatory and a matter of opinion rather than fact. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education:

In his lectures, Mr. Hoppe said that certain groups of people – including small children, very old people, and homosexuals – tend to prefer present-day consumption to long-term investment. Because homosexuals generally do not have children, Mr. Hoppe said, they feel less need to look toward the future. (In a recent talk at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Mr. Hoppe says was similar to his classroom lecture, he declared, "Homosexuals have higher time preferences, because life ends with them."), Mr. Knight found that argument unwarranted and obnoxious, and he promptly filed a complaint with the university. In a telephone interview on Saturday, Mr. Knight said: "I was just shocked and appalled. I said to myself, Where the hell is he getting this information from? I was completely surprised, and that's why I went to the university about this."

Theses comments triggered an academic controversy which resulted in a "nondisciplinary" letter being issued February 9, 2005 instructing Hoppe to "...cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact." The ACLU represented Hoppe, and he was defended in an editorial article in the The Rebel Yell, the UNLV student newspaper." Carol Harter, president of UNLV, in a February 18, 2005 letter said that "UNLV, in accordance with policy adopted by the Board of Regents, understands that the freedom afforded to Professor Hoppe and to all members of the academic community carries a significant corresponding academic responsibility. In the balance between freedoms and responsibilities, and where there may be ambiguity between the two, academic freedom must, in the end, be foremost." Following the controversy the "nondisciplinary" letter was withdrawn from his personnel file.