[Industrialblog,
March 31, 2004]
Brown University, or, The Lilliputians
Brown University has convened a Committee on Slavery and Justice to look into the connection between Brown and the slave trade. The Weekly Standard is on the case here. Here's the lead:
Industrial Blog is convening a Committee On New Lilliputians to look into the matter. OK, we've reviewed the matter: Brown University's Committee wins. They are small people walking around feeling self-important; thus, Lilliputians.
God bless bilious Jonathan Swift. He knew people.
IN APRIL 2003, Brown University president Ruth Simmons invited more than a dozen members of the Brown community to serve on a Committee on Slavery and Justice. The committee lay mostly dormant until March of this year, when its existence was made public (Brown arranged for the news to break in the New York Times). Since then, the committee has attracted much attention because (1) Ruth Simmons is, as the Times trumpets, "a great-granddaughter of slaves," as well as the first black Ivy League president; and (2) the committee may set precedent on the issue of reparations.
As the Times puts it, Simmons "has directed Brown to start what its officials say is an unprecedented undertaking for a university: an exploration of reparations for slavery and specifically whether Brown should pay reparations or otherwise make amends for its past."
Industrial Blog is convening a Committee On New Lilliputians to look into the matter. OK, we've reviewed the matter: Brown University's Committee wins. They are small people walking around feeling self-important; thus, Lilliputians.
God bless bilious Jonathan Swift. He knew people.
I still want to know who, exactly, Brown should pay reparations to. And would Ms. Simmon's pay be reduced to help pay for said reparations, since she is obviously benefitting to whatever degree Brown in general is benefitting?
That's the single biggest problem with reparations, it seems to me — I don't have too much of a problem with a son being responsible for his Father's debts, but there's no good indication of who should pay them or who should get them.
As an example, I know that I didn't have any ancestors who were in this country before the civil war; most of my great-grandparents weren't born here.
Well, the way I see it, a son being responsible for his father's debts is just the flip side of the coin of inhereting your father's property. In essence, if you inherit anything from you father, inherit everything from your father. Good and bad.
There is of course a major problem in dealing with anything this far removed in history, of course, and that's figuring out who's inherited what.
The reparations scam is not about compensation for what other individuals did. It is an attempt to pressure institutions and govt. to admit fault and responsibility for the offense of upholding slavery when it existed. At the time, slavery was neither a crime or unconstitutional so the whole idea is ex post facto nonsense. More or less 70% of the current U.S. population descends from people who entered the U.S. after 1860 so who are the people to be held responsible? It is impossible to litigate; the institutions that cave in are trying to avoid bad press and legal costs. The idea does nothing to improve race relations but does much to increase racial hostility. It is race hustling at its worst.
This is rather different than moral culpability for its parent's sins; we do not inherit anything of morality from our parents, good or bad. On the other hand, we do inherit the good of the property from our parents, so whatever principle would justify us having claim to our parents property would also seem to justify us having responsibility for our parents debts. I'm only talking about property because property is the only thing which is passed from parents to children.
Again, reparations for slavery strike me as generally being nonsense, moreover because slavery was not illegal when it was practiced. It's pretty bizarre to prosecute people for not comitting a crime.