I’ve already seen George Mason University badly mistreat non-conformist professors. Should I expect the same to happen to me? I wouldn’t be surprised, but I’m not greatly worried either. I’m definitely not going to self-censor to protect myself. Yet quite a few people tell me that I’m in grave danger. One of them, Todd Proebsting, a C.S. professor at the University of Arizona, has offered to bet me.
To be clear, Todd wishes me well. He does not want me to suffer mistreatment; he merely predicts it. Here are the terms on which we have agreed.
I bet Todd Proebsting $50 at even odds that I will NOT be “clearly mistreated” by George Mason University before January 1, 2031.
If there is a dispute, Phil Magness will have final authority to determine the winner of the bet.
Examples of “clear mistreatment” include but are not limited to:
1. Any public announcement by an agent of my university’s administration that my speech or writings are under investigation, or a subject of further inquiry.
2. Any GMU investigation or inquiry into my speech or writing. This could be done by administrators or an ad hoc committee or HR or whatever.
3. Any official disciplinary action due to my speech or writing, even if limited to a mere “warning”.
4. Cancellation of a public talk by me at GMU.
5. Any negative financial consequences explicitly justified by my speech or writings.
6. “Clear mistreatment” does NOT include any employee of GMU expressing disapproval of the content of my speech or writings, but DOES include any official personal or professional condemnation. So: Todd doesn’t win for “GMU strongly disagrees with what Prof. Caplan said about pickpockets,” but Todd does win for “GMU strongly condemns Prof. Caplan for saying that about pickpockets.”
Update: David Henderson has accepted the same bet, with the following proviso: “In the event that David R. Henderson is dead or has dementia on January 1, 2031, neither he nor his estate has to pay up in the event of David’s losing the bet and neither he nor his estate is owed money by Bryan Caplan in the event that David wins the bet.”
READER COMMENTS
MB
Jan 28 2021 at 9:47am
I think this will be the first bet you lose.
Jonathan S
Jan 28 2021 at 2:09pm
Unless greater than 5% of GMU faculty get this type of persecution then Bryan is a shoe-in to win this bet.
The first currently open bet that Bryan loses is his global warming bet.
Brandon Reinhart
Jan 28 2021 at 9:55am
This a courageous bet and I hope you win.
Eric Rasmusen
Jan 28 2021 at 10:08am
In my case, the assault started with the Provost (the university CEO, basically), emailing a few thousand people to say:
“Dear Kelley Community Members,
Professor Eric Rasmusen has, for many years, used his private social media accounts to disseminate his racist, sexist, and homophobic views…”
There was a lot more, but would this, if said about Prof. Caplan, cause Prof. Proebsting to win the bet, or not?
In my case, the Administration followed up with a Title IX investigation, moving my office to a faroff building, etc., but suppose it were just this one statement? Note that it does not actually condemn my views; it just insults me.
David Henderson
Jan 28 2021 at 10:48am
I’d like in for $50 on Todd’s side of the bet. Deal?
nobody.really
Jan 28 2021 at 11:03am
CAPLAN–Don’t take the deal until you read Henderson’s next post!
In that post, Henderson reports on the recent fad to manipulate the price of GameStop stock just for the joy of frustrating the bets placed by hedge fund investors. No disrespect to anyone here–but do you really want to give people an incentive to manipulate events in order to win this bet? Just sayin’….
Glem W Smith
Jan 29 2021 at 1:57pm
If a non-conformist in a public setting doesn’t at least run a strong risk of mistreatment, is he really a non-conformist?
RPLong
Jan 28 2021 at 11:04am
I think Caplan will win this bet. My sense of things is that cancellation and outrage culture are on the wane.
nobody.really
Jan 28 2021 at 11:25am
Has everyone really thought this bet through?
Specifically, we’re talking about a $50 pay-out in 2031. What will be the national debt by then? And what consequence will this have for the pay-out? Typically a person might expect inflation, rendering the pay-out insignificant. But what about the opposite? What if —
there’s a renewed interest in balancing the budget–resulting in tax increases and/or spending cuts;
this triggers a new surge in US populism;
we get a president who runs on a platform of “sticking it to the man” and who is well acquainted with defaulting on debts;
the president elects to default on US payments;
the word’s economy crashes; and
we fall into hyperDEflation?
This is an econ blog: If we’re talking about 10 years, shouldn’t the pay-out be adjusted for inflation?
Eric B Rasmusen
Jan 28 2021 at 11:36am
With colleges having covid money troubles, expect to see more firings of faculty on specious wokeness grounds, to save money. The AAUP is seeing this already last fall.
AMT
Jan 28 2021 at 12:20pm
These seem to be a very low bar. Doesn’t a university basically have to perform some sort of at least minimal “investigation” if a student makes a complaint, baseless (“Caplan’s analysis of minimum wages triggered me!”) or not, regardless of the university bearing any ill will or actually finding you did something wrong? I’m reminded of the professor who said a Chinese word that sounded like a slur in English. It also seems totally inconsistent with point 6:
According to the list, simply “investigating” is even worse than actually expressing disapproval, which doesn’t make much sense to me.
Mark Z
Jan 28 2021 at 5:43pm
I think an investigation is definitely worse than an expression of disapproval. A member of the police department expressing public disapproval of me would concern me less than the department formally investigating me for something. I can’t think of many contexts in which I’d rather be investigated than subjected to disapproval.
AMT
Jan 28 2021 at 11:51pm
How about, perhaps, literally the exact situation I described??? It’s impossible to say you have been “mistreated” by someone who is simply doing their job.
If my neighbor makes up some complaint about me, why would I ever be mad at the cop for investigating the false claim, which they HAVE to do?! I have been mistreated by the person making up the false claim, not the person forced to investigate it. (Assuming they perform a competent investigation and find the truth)
BC
Jan 29 2021 at 3:34am
As you say, your neighbor is mistreating you by filing a false claim. That requires you to defend yourself, possibly incurring the cost of hiring an attorney, and risking conviction. (Bearing risk is a negative, even if you are ultimately vindicated.)
If a student accuses Caplan of creating an “unsafe” environment based on the content of Caplan’s speech or writings and such speech was of a general nature not directed specifically at the student, then that does constitute mistreatment of Caplan and is a common and unfortunate aspect of cancel culture. Caplan would be unfairly put in a position of having to defend himself against harassment charges (creating a “hostile” environment). Even if he is ultimately acquitted, the defense will require much time and energy. Also, the mere accusation of harassment will damage his professional reputation. Censoring speech because it is blasphemous doesn’t work. But, what has been working is to say that the speech is a form of violence that makes someone feel “unsafe” or “unwelcome”. Abusing inclusion and anti-harassment policies to censor speech of a general nature is a form of mistreatment.
Mark Z
Jan 29 2021 at 4:22pm
“It’s impossible to say you have been “mistreated” by someone who is simply doing their job.”
Do universities have no discretion whatsoever in how seriously they take frivolous complaints, or in whether to announce to the public that a faculty member is under investigation? I don’t get the impression that their hands are really that tied. If someone files a complaint against a faculty member for, say, harassment, and describes an actual scenario that clearly does not meet the definition of harassment, but opens a formal investigation anyway and publicizes it, I would say that’s more than merely ‘doing their job.’ Police also can and do refrain from investigating frivolous complaints, nor have an obligation to even respond to 911 calls, and there are undoubtedly complaints it would be gratuitous to investigate even with unlimited resources.
AMT
Jan 29 2021 at 7:40pm
Yes, of course there is such a thing as malicious prosecution. I was not describing that. If you would read what I said, it was, “simply doing their job,”…”regardless of the university bearing any ill will or actually finding you did something wrong.” My obvious point, is that a neutral investigation means absolutely nothing, and should in many situations be expected. If they do other things BEYOND that, meaning it is not neutral (not SIMPLY doing their job; bearing ill will) it is a different story, but that was NOT described in the terms Bryan noted.
“Any GMU investigation or inquiry into my speech or writing.”
Mark Z
Feb 1 2021 at 3:11am
Perhaps Bryan is operating from the assumption that he won’t say or write anything wrong (or wrong enough to merit an investigation), and that if an investigation is made into his writing or speaking, it is probably frivolous. Sure, even assuming that, someone could accuse him of saying something discriminatory or harassing in class, and then they might investigate whether he said it, but I think most of the scenarios of the kind under consideration aren’t ones where someone is accused of saying/writing something against the rules, and there’s a need to determine whether they actually did it, but rather, what they said or wrote is public knowledge.
BC
Jan 29 2021 at 3:41am
The professor who said a Chinese word that sounded like a slur in English was definitely mistreated. He was suspended from teaching his class during the investigation.
AMT
Jan 29 2021 at 12:50pm
Yes, but if they had simply investigated without any punishment, would that have been “mistreatment?” It’s a better example of how you could not do anything wrong and still receive a complaint, because the issue is how the university responds, which is why I added “regardless of the university bearing any ill will or actually finding you did something wrong.”
Philo
Jan 28 2021 at 12:58pm
Caplan says he will not self-censor, but on principle he has adopted a gentle, agreeable approach to persuasion, and this bet gives him extra incentive to be gentle and agreeable. Also, he has the advantage of knowing what sorts of topics he plans to address, and things he plans to say, in the future. I wouldn’t want to bet against him.
Ben
Jan 28 2021 at 4:44pm
This may be one of the easiest bets for Caplan to win…shutting down all public commentary and relying on TA’s to instruct all classes for next 10 years would substantially increase odds of winning.
At this point it’s not just a $50 bet it’s also the continuation of win streak which is on the line.
Niko Davor
Jan 28 2021 at 5:56pm
Caplan’s big single issue crusade, immigration, is aligned perfectly with the current left-wing cultural revolution. In that sense, Caplan is an ally of the cultural revolution, not an enemy. The cultural revolution persecutes its enemies, not its allies.
Caplan disagrees with the cultural revolution on almost everything except immigration. But Caplan isn’t focused on changing political reality on any other issue. For example, Caplan’s book, “The Case Against Education”, would horrify most of those leading the left-wing cultural revolution. If Caplan pursued those ideas as a determined activist, where they were plausibly close to changing political reality, then the left-wing cultural revolution would see Caplan as an enemy and persecute accordingly. Caplan was entirely serious and sincere about the ideas in that book, and they are radical (and great) ideas, but they aren’t close to political reality and Caplan hasn’t invested determined effort into changing that.
As for the bet: that depends on which issues Caplan chooses to engage in serious activism around. Caplan may choose to keep his activism focused on open borders and tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus such that the cultural revolution continues to see him as an ally.
Robert A Gressis
Jan 31 2021 at 12:40pm
This is exactly right. Caplan is no dummy; I think his Carnegieism extends not just to his personal conduct but, as much as possible, to his research conduct. He writes about topics, and in such a way, that he can court people on the left (open borders) and the right (voters are irrational, higher education is a waste for most). But the positions he defends on the right are ones that have no hope of coming to pass, whereas the ones he defends on the left actually do have a hope of coming to pass. Since the left controls academia, they’re not worried about his right-wing stuff, and since the intellectual right generally lives in fantasyland (because they have very little ability to affect things), they like his right-wing stuff and shrug their shoulders at his leftwing stuff.
That said, his book on the undeserving poor might actually get him in trouble — unless he focuses a fair bit on how “working class whites” are undeserving. Which he will! Because they are!
I actually see Caplan as a model for how to conduct research if you’re not interested in conforming your views to the left but don’t want to get in trouble. It’s how I do it as well, though I don’t do it as well.
Niko Davor
Feb 1 2021 at 12:51pm
+1. Thank you for this comment 🙂
Kyle Walter
Jan 29 2021 at 11:22pm
I was initially inclined to say this was an atypically reckless bet for Professor Caplan. 10 years is a long time, and the social justice people are pretty emotionally volatile and faddish, which makes them unpredictable. But upon reflection, you mainly write about topics that don’t interest them very much. They may support the minimum wage law, but the racial and sexual Kulturkampf stuff is what they care about most deeply. Educational austerity? It threatens the crass material self-interest of professors, but it’s never going to happen and has no obvious racial/sexual angle. You’re just not an interesting or threatening enough enemy.
You’ve managed to avoid their wrath thus far for probably this very reason.
Jose Pablo
Jan 30 2021 at 12:40pm
The publication of “Poverty: Who is to Blame?” could affect the outcome of this bet.
The intersection between the “deserving-undeserving poverty” and “race” debate is going to be tricky, to say the least.
Not to talk about “blame matters” as a topic for discussion …
And you are perfectly aware that past experiences show that fact-based data will not protect you from persecution, much less “moral arguments” no matter how logically well-constructed they are.
I can’t wait!
Mark Bahner
Jan 31 2021 at 5:33pm
I know I can find almost anything on the Internet, but I’m too lazy to take the time to try to research this question:
What is George Mason’s past record on “badly mistreating” “nonconformist” professors?
How many “nonconformist” professors has George Mason had in the last few decades, and how many have been “badly mistreated”?
David Henderson
Feb 9 2021 at 9:35am
The one I know of recently is Robin Hanson, back in June.
Comments are closed.