From the Tom Woods Letter:

How about this:

By far the most prolific living libertarian is Walter Block, who has written countless books and close to 600 scholarly articles — an accomplishment I am uncertain if any academic in any discipline could match today, or ever.

Walter has also co-authored over 100 scholarly articles with students. That's unheard of. What an extraordinary advantage that gives Walter's students over their peers — how many students of other professors can say they published an article in an academic journal while they were undergraduates?

Loyola University, New Orleans, where Walter teaches, must be beaming with pride, right?

Well, a group of students are currently circulating a petition to get Walter fired on the grounds that — you'll never guess — he is a "racist" and a "sexist."

(In response, a counter-petition has been started, demanding that Walter be given a raise.)

This is because, like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, Walter Block does not believe that "discrimination" is the universal, no-analysis-necessary explanation for the various disparities between blacks and whites, or men and women. And of course he is quite correct to take that position, since the "discrimination" view is ridiculous on its face to anyone familiar with the data. (Sowell's overlooked book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? dismantles the "discrimination" school.)

They are also unhappy about what they mistakenly believe Walter told the New York Times about slavery. They think he said slavery "wasn't so bad." What he actually said was: the problem with slavery was its coercive nature; it doesn't matter what the slaves' caloric intake or per-capita living space was if they were coerced into being there.

Simple enough for a normal person to grasp, which means the New York Times pretended to misunderstand Walter, or at least make his views seem suspect and opaque.

So ridiculous was the Times' portrayal, in fact, that Walter sued them for libel. The Times settled out of court, so although we can't know the terms of the settlement, it's rather curious that columns by Walter — of all people — suddenly began appearing in its pages.

I'm taking that as being as close to an admission of guilt as most people are likely to get from the Times.

Let's add to all this that Walter has repeatedly made clear that he believes that the descendants of slaves do have a right to reparations, though not indiscriminately from all Americans (he explained his position in an interview with me).

It seems virtually certain that the savages are unaware of this, particularly since knowing it would require them to read scholarly journals, which we may legitimately doubt they tend to do.