For over a decade, I've listened to and discussed the case for and against reparations as a means of addressing the long-term effects of the injustices dealt to African Americans. I've never had a problem with the basis for the argument in favor of reparations--that African Americans, due to slavery, segregation and pervasive bigotry, were cheated out of the full economic benefits of their work and sacrifices. But the logistical problems of implementing such a problem are enormous, and seem at first glance unsolvable. There are two basic questions: who gets the reparations, and how much should we pay?
The first question generates its own difficult questions. Do we make payments to individuals, or families? Do we investigate family histories, to determine whether some have suffered more than others? Do we have a cut-off point for determining when the effects of racism have ended? And, if we do, what should that cut-off point be? The decision in Brown vs. Board of Education? The enactment of the Civil Rights Act? The election of President Obama?
And the same applies to the question of "how much." If we measure the answer in dollars, and allow for the potential of interest and other effects of investment--capital gains, new discoveries, advancements in productivity and so on--it's clear that the cost is enormous, no matter how you try to calculate it. This, of course, brings to mind the problem of damages in our common-law system of redressing injuries. We can never restore the status quo ante in most cases, so we attempt to come up with a sum that reflects as best we can our outrage at the injury, in addition to helping the injured make the most of their altered lives.
In short, reparations may be a solution, but far from an easy one. This recent Slate.com article does a excellent job of supporting the case for making reparations, and summing up the difficulties in doing so. More importantly, it suggest that overcoming those difficulties may not be impossible. There may, in fact, be forms of reparations that are not strictly monetary, such as greater enforcement of existing laws, or ending programs such as the so-called "war on drugs" that are inherently discriminatory in effect. As for monetary reparations, they could be broken down to address different effects of racism--from housing vouchers to investment programs designed to generate income for reparations.
Maybe reparations can be a way of getting past the debate about affirmative action programs, and the question of whether such programs operate mechanically to aid individuals who don't need it, while blocking the progress of those who do. However well designed and well intended such programs were, it is clear that they no longer have the political support (or, at least, tolerance) they once received. It is also no less clear that the racism affirmative action was designed to address still exists.
But what is equally clear, as the Slate author points out, is that we need a path to a national reckoning with the original sin of slavery, the sin that is baked into our national birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. We need to formally acknowledge the wrong that has been done, and find a way to pay for it. This is where Chief Justice John Roberts is grievously wrong. The way to end discrimination on the basis of race is not simply to end it. It is to acknowledge how it was created, and the fact that it must-and will--be paid for by those who have benefited from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment