Slavery in the United States ended as an institution nearly 140 years ago, but controversy still rages over whether the present-day descendants of slaves are entitled to compensation for the wrongs of history.
Professors Charles Ogletree of Harvard and Glenn Loury of Boston University debated the controversial issue at Collis Commonground last night, agreeing that the United States must address the wrongs of the past and the continuing racial inequality of the present but clashing over the viability of reparations.
"As much as America has moved forward, we still have a pervasive racial divide," said Ogletree, who is planning to sue the U.S. government -- as well as several colleges and universities -- over the reparations issue.
Ogletree, who argued that reparations have a precedent in the funds granted to Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and in the billions distributed among Holocaust survivors, called the lawsuit a "course of last resort" to address ongoing racial inequality in education, income, criminality and other measures.
He said that slavery had ended in 1863 only "as a matter of law, not a matter of fact," and said that despite legal victories in the century since, racism continues to be a pervasive force nationwide.
While agreeing that blacks continue to suffer the effects of historical wrongs to the present day, Loury -- an economics professor -- argued that "there are no racial solutions" to current racial disparities.
"I want to go to the legislature to solve these problems," Loury said, calling a courtroom approach to the issue "bad political strategy."
Loury also feared that a successful lawsuit would effectively shut down further debate on the persistence of racism and racial inequality.
"The book will be closed on history by the successful prosecution of this claim," he said, pushing instead for a "progressive set of social programs" to deal with long-standing problems.
Ogletree, for his part, said he "lacked any confidence" that Washington would ever take steps to redress the effects of slavery and discrimination, citing lack of effort on the part of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
He was less clear, however, on precisely what form such reparations would take.
"My idea is of a trust fund available to the poorest members of the African-American community," Ogletree said, dismissing the notion of simple cash grants as "cheap forgiveness."
He noted that many other proponents of reparations had different notions of how funds would be distributed, but he did not spell out exactly how much money would be required or who would be eligible to receive it.
When asked by a student whether the adopted child of a black family would qualify for reparations, Ogletree replied that the child would not, and advocated the possible use of DNA testing to determine ancestry in controversial cases.
Ogletree also claimed -- in response to the question of another student -- that the millions of immigrants who arrived at U.S. shores after the demise of slavery acquired an equal share of the nation's racial problems.
"Immigrants make no difference. It's everybody's problem," he said.
Loury disagreed, pointing out that the over 30 million immigrants who have arrived since the Immigration Act of 1965 have been largely nonwhite and are inclined to "sit on the sidelines" in a debate that carries little meaning for them.
A lack of moral foundation for the reparations claim also proved troublesome for Loury.
"I'm hard-pressed to find any deep ethical reason for this," Loury said, questioning why poor blacks would receive funds at the expense of poor whites, and agreeing with questioners that some degree of resentment on the part of whites would likely result.
Ogletree countered by saying that reparations are not "a popularity contest," but a moral obligation owed to the millions of African slaves brought to the United States during the slave trade.
Acknowledging Ogletree's commitment to his cause, Loury nonetheless described the United States as "an ever-growing nation of immigrants" for which "not all historical wrongs are subject to being repaired."
The debate, which was sponsored by the Rockefeller Center, was part of the week-long series of events held in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.
