Econ prof addresses allegations of hate-group affiliation, Loyola not conducting an investigation

Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo is not under official investigation in relation to allegations made about his ties to the League of the South, a southern nationalist organization, according to Vice President for Academic Affairs Tim Snyder.

DiLorenzo appeared before the House Financial Service Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 9, at the invitation of committee chairman Ron Paul (R-Texas) to testify on the Federal Reserve Bank. After his testimony, Democratic Rep. William Clay, who sits on the committee, raised questions about DiLorenzo's ties to the League of the South,  classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Clay accused DiLorenzo of working "for a Southern nationalist organization that espouses very radical notions about American history and the federal government." DiLorenzo rebutted Clay's claim in a Feb. 11 posting on LewRockwell.com—a site that describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, [and] pro-market"—saying that his only connection with the League was a series of lectures he delivered 13 years ago on the economics of the Civil War; DiLorenzo gave the lectures at a week-long summer seminar sponsored by three professors who just started a League of the South Institute.

"We don't have any evidence indicating the accusation is true," said Snyder in response to Clay's allegation. "We would not support any member of our community being a confirmed member of a confirmed hate group."

According to Snyder, Loyola's administration is "looking more closely into" this particular allegation, primarily because of the "highly public" nature of Clay's claim.

"Prof. DiLorenzo has denied affiliation with this group . . . consistently," said Snyder. "Not only membership, but affiliation."

Snyder refused to comment on whether any members of Loyola's administration were in direct talks with DiLorenzo. "I'd prefer to keep that private," he said. "That's a personnel matter, and I wouldn't want details to be public."

But according to Heidi Beirich, the director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center, DiLorenzo was a member of the League of the South. In an e-mail message, Beirich noted that the SPLC has been "tracking DiLorenzo since the early 2000s, when he first got involved with the League of the South." He appears on an SPLC watch list of people they say "form the core of the neo-Confederate movement," a school of thought supported by people who are apologists for the Confederacy and describe Pres. Abraham Lincoln as tyrannical, according to Beirich.

"Thanks to Thomas DiLorenzo and others of his ilk," the 2004 SPLC watch list states, "the 16th president is now viewed in neo-Confederate circles as a paragon of wickedness, a man secretly intent on destroying states' rights and building a massive federal government."

DiLorenzo is a libertarian economic historian, a self-described Civil War buff and a senior fellow at the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Institute, which describes itself as the "world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." According to him, the southern states that seceded from the U.S. in 1861 should have been allowed to peacefully leave the Union since the states originally came together in a voluntary, cooperative pact when they signed the Constitution. For Lincoln to wage war with the South to bring them back into the Union was tyrannical, a point DiLorenzo writes about in his 2002 publication,Lincoln Unmasked.

Other economists back up DiLorenzo's position. In an article published Feb. 15 on RealClearMarkets.com, Editor John Tammy writes, "Libertarian objections to Lincoln and the Civil War have to do with the tariffs imposed by northern manufacturing interests on imports that made it difficult for southern agricultural interests to export their goods... And while the Civil War was also of course about slavery, individuals such as Ron Paul certainly don't decry it for ending slavery; rather they correctly point out that slavery was already dying around the world without shots being fired."

For DiLorenzo, then, the allegations levied at him by Clay and the SPLC amount to nothing more than "malicious character assassination," he said in an email.

Michael Hill, the president of the League of the South, said that while they listed DiLorenzo as a League of the South Institute scholar, it "doesn't mean anything."

"We asked him to talk because of the work he was doing on tariffs," said Hill in a phone interview. When asked whether the League was racist or supported slavery, Hill said, "No, absolutely not."

"We value faith and honor and Christian, conservative values," said Hill. "We want to go back to the vision of our founders about how the political system should work." A statement on the League's website published in 2005 by its board of directors says, "we bear no ill will or hatred to any racial, ethnic, or religious group."

"Hill is presenting a very pretty face to you," said Beirich in separate phone conversation, noting that what Hill says in public doesn't match up with his private beliefs. "The League's belief is that slavery was God-ordained. They're anti-immigrant, homophobic...people who glorify the Confederacy, [and] think the beliefs of the Confederacy were a good thing."

Beirich also points out that the League listed DiLorenzo as a guest lecturer as recently as 2009 at the summer conference, "Lincoln Reconsidered"; DiLorenzo claims the event never occurred for lack of funding.

"She's a liar," said DiLorenzo in response to Beirich's claim that he was a member of the League.  "And even if I was, it's not a ‘hate group' in anyone's mind but hers."

"His message couldn't be further from a hate message," said Pete Coyne, a junior economics major who has taken two classes with DiLorenzo. "He's very strongly anti-hate . . . [and] anti-slavery. He makes the argument that free labor is not only more just than slavery, but it's also a more productive form of employment than slavery because it's voluntary."