Sunday, February 13, 2005


UNLV appears to have chosen to hide behind a cloak of secrecy in dealing with its attempt to discipline Professor Hans Hoppe for the comments he made regarding homosexuals and his claim that they have a tendency towards high time preference.

Many in the news media and many on the internet have chosen to raise questions with regard to the contractual "Academic Freedom" rights of Professor Hoppe and whether UNLV has over-stepped its bounds by attempting to discipline him for his remarks. UNLV simply says it will not discuss the matter. What next? Will UNLV claim National Security Concerns as a reason for not discussing the situation?

Here is the UNLV press release:

In my book, university campuses are supposed to be institutions where free and open discussions can be made, it thus seems almost bizarre that UNLV refuses to even discuss the disciplinary actions it has attempted to enforce against Hoppe.

This strikes one almost as an old Soviet Union type method where rulings are made and who know's why? Sadly, if UNLV gets its way, all students will know about this situation is that Prof. Hoppe said homosexuals have high time preference and he was punished for it.

If there is more to the story UNLV, let's hear it.

Don't hide behind the weak argument of protecting the student's identity. We don't want to know the student's identity. We want to know why you are trying to discipline Prof. Hoppe.

To the UNLV officials responsible for putting out the above referenced press release, you should be embarrassed that you did so.

Frankly this press release looks to me like the Politically Correct Crowd getting caught with their pants down, and now they are trying to run for cover.

Post lifted from Economics Daily


No more lifeguards on Australian beaches?

Surf lifesavers have warned they may have to abandon their red and yellow patrol flags on beaches after a High Court ruling upheld a multi-million-dollar payout to a man left as a quadriplegic after an accident on a patrolled beach. This week's 3-2 High Court decision to reinstate a $3.75million negligence award to Guy Swain, 31, had the potential to halt beach patrols by Surf Life Saving Australia, the group's chief executive officer Greg Nance said yesterday.

Mr Swain was permanently disabled when he dived into a sandbank while swimming between the flags on Bondi Beach in Sydney. "Our lawyers have indicated there is not a problem. Our insurers, on the other hand, want to have a look at it, and that worries me," Mr Nance said. "Without public liability insurance, I can't put the patrols out and I can't put the flags out. If it's taken away from us, it's a sad day for Australia."

Lawyers and insurers for SLSA will meet Mr Nance on Monday to decide whether the SLSA still had the ability to put the flags out.

After his accident in 1997, Mr Swain successfully sued Waverley Council for negligence and was awarded $3.75 million in damages by the NSW Supreme Court in 2002. However, the verdict was overturned on appeal by the council. In making this week's decision, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said the original jury's finding of fact - that Waverley Council failed to exercise reasonable care in positioning the flags - should not have been overturned during the appeal.

Since Mr Swain's accident, the states have introduced legislation aimed at capping public liability payouts. But Mr Nance warned the Swain case may have a "knock-on" effect and that successive interpretations by judges would see the state laws wound back. "I hope it's not the first shot in a protracted battle that we lose eventually, and that these laws get watered down," Mr Nance said. He said he hoped the decision did not expose SLSA to claims of negligence or affect the organisation's ability to obtain insurance. For the past six years, SLSA has been able to get affordable insurance only from overseas brokers. Claims against SLSA had dropped to zero in the past two years since the laws were introduced, Mr Nance said.

The contribution of Australia's volunteer lifesavers could also be undermined if, as a result of the judgment, the burden of proof shifted and lifesavers, instead of the injured, were required to record and collect evidence to justify their actions and decisions, Mr Nance said.


The blame game: "It seems that everybody's looking for somebody to blame these days. In things large and small; all encompassing and personal; important and, well, laughable; the greatest effort is spent laying the problem at someone else's doorstep rather than actually figuring out how it is there's a problem in the first place. And then once fault has been set to somebody's satisfaction, somebody else will get sued instead of anybody bothering to see what it might take to actually fix the problem. It's important, of course, in this process that a few facts don't get in the way of any predetermination of blame, and that the whole story not be publicized when half of the story is more incendiary."

No comments: