To the Editor:

I would like the economics professors who wrote a letter in last week’s Smoky Mountain News (www.smokymountainnews.com/opinion/item/17086) to please explain with some specifics how Western Carolina University Professor Ed Lopez has been “subjected to unjustified criticism.” In the guest column I wrote I used the professor’s own writings to discuss the situation, using direct quotes from those writings. If you feel I mischaracterized the professor’s position I would be happy to engage you on specifics.

You write that “misguided, misinformed, and in some cases ideologically biased voices have been raised against Professor Lopez and his initiatives.” The sentence is a bit of an unspecific ad hominem, which quite frankly could be turned around in at least a couple of your cases. I wonder, is it ideological to point out that Dr. Lopez is a frequent speaker for groups funded by both the Kochs and Art Pope, both of whom fully acknowledge their ideological and political goals.

The fields of Public Choice Theory and Austrian economics are largely ideological by their own definition and assertion (would you like some von Mises quotes to back that up?). The proposed Center would seem to have a focus on branches of economics that are far from mainstream. That hardly seems like a prescription for benefiting our students (“our” as in products of North Carolina and our public university system).

Within your own department I would contrast the proposal with Dr. Ha’s record, which gives an exemplary example of practical and useful research focused on the local and regional economy. Perhaps a Center for Mountain Economies focused on the challenges we face in Western North Carolina would be more suitable for the area.

As colleagues of Dr. Lopez, it is perhaps expected and understandable that you would come to his defense. Unfortunately, your letter doesn’t provide much of a defense.

Furthermore, to suggest that the criticisms  leveled at the proposal are “not only unjust but detrimental to the people of North Carolina, the stature of the UNC system, its commitment to academic freedom, and in the final analysis, counter-productive” is little more than emotionally charged language that at the least can be disposed of as high dudgeon and at its worst betrays a failure to understand the basic democratic process or the purpose and place of a publicly funded university.

In addition to my earlier comment, let me further note that in my guest column (www.smokymountainnews.com/archives/item/17008) I specifically exempted Dr. Lopez’s teaching or selection of content from criticism — criticism of the subject matter is not criticism of the teacher. 

Further, I think it is rather hard to argue that The Smoky Mountain News’ coverage has focused on Dr. Lopez’s character or teaching. The reporting has been straightforward in looking at the grant and the circumstances surrounding its offer.

Dr. Lopez’s behavior, his teaching, and his character are not at issue. And they should not be without demonstration that he acted outside the norms, procedures and processes of the institution in pursuing the grant.

Parenthetically, it is worth noting that the premise of much of Dr. Lopez’s writing is that individuals act out of self-interest and that institutions can be manipulated by small and/or powerful groups in ways that enhance self-interest over institutional purpose. Dr. Lopez correctly uses the example of sugar subsidies as a flawed policy, but why not subsidies from billionaires to move public institutions in preferred directions? Could that not speak to a flawed or perhaps undemocratic policy?

Mark Jamison

Cullowhee