From Southern University at New Orleans Race, Gender & Class 2011, Pg. 95 Vol. 18 No. 1/2

By Na'im Madyun. Na'im Madyun is an Assistant Professor in the Postsecondary Teaching & Learning department of the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on the role of social and cultural capital in the academic experience of marginalized students.

Address: College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 315 Burton, 178 Pillsbury Dr, SE., Minneapolis, MN 55455. Ph.: (612) 624-5761, Fax: (612) 625-3709, Email: madyu002@umn.edu

Abstract: For many, the achievement gap is considered the social justice issue of the 21st century. What the average Black student knows upon graduation, the average White student mastered in the 8th grade. Ironically, resolving this issue might begin by addressing one of the more controversial unresolved issues in American history-reparations. Within the Black community alone, there is noticeable variation in how to address the issue of reparations that tend to evoke feelings of anger and morose regardless of the individual position. Outside of the Black community, feelings of guilt sometime accompany the aforementioned feelings. By using the concept of forgiveness and the theory of stereotype threat, it will be argued that the resulting climate created by the current discourse on reparations has a negative impact on the achievement gap. Recommendations for how to address reparations to reduce the achievement gap will be provided.

CURRENT CONDITION OF BLACK EDUCATION 

Ten percent of the African American pre-college population will drop out before ever receiving a high school diploma (Cataldi et. al, 2009). Of the remaining 90%, only 55% will graduate high school in four years (Podesta, 2007) with 75% eventually receiving their high school diploma (Heckman & LaFontaine, 2007). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the average Black 12th grade student's academic proficiency is roughly the same as the average White 8th grader (Roach, 2004). This may explain why only 25% of the 75% who receive their high school diploma are eligible for college (Green & Forster, 2003), or it may better explain why only 40% (Cook & Cordova, 2007) of the 25% of the 75% eventually go to college. Of the 40% who attend college, approximately 40% will graduate within 6 years (The Education Trust, 2010). This is roughly equivalent to 60 out of every 1000 African American high school students receiving a college degree. The educational status for African American students is at a crisis point. Surprisingly, at the turn of the 21st century, the achievement gap in the United States was sadly similar to its size at the beginning of integration (Roach, 2001). It is quite possible that an important step in resolving this crisis will require America to fully examine her roots.

BRIEF REVIEW OF AMERICA'S ROOTS

The first Africans were brought to the United States in 1619 to function primarily as indentured servants although some were in the role of slave (Salzberger & Turck, 2004). Performing as indentured servants led to the presence of African landowners. Even though Whites and Native Americans were also indentured servants during this period, race slowly began to play a larger role (Salzberger & Turck, 2004). By 1640, only Africans were used as indentured servants (Asente, 2003) and eventually law declared that every African servant would function as a slave (Salzberger & Turck, 2004). Slavery did not become illegal in the United States until 1865, establishing 246 continuous years of free African labor (Winbush, 2003).

Immediately following slavery, Black codes were installed at the state level to regulate property ownership, access to work and equal opportunities (Salzberger & Turck, 2004). The codes severely impacted the ability of Blacks in the area of education. The construction of schools was obstructed, funding for school maintenance was denied and educators were intentional targets of harassment to maintain the status quo (Williams & Ashley, 2004). Roughly, a decade after the establishment of Black codes, Jim Crow laws were implemented and maintained until 1965. Similar to Black codes, these laws restricted access to equal resources (Yosso et al., 2004). The Jim Crow laws also negatively impacted the area of education. Not only did Black college development decline significantly after the enactment of Jim Crow laws, but the laws helped to create and maintain a noticeable gap in the quality and diversity of instruction between Black and White colleges (Williams & Ashley, 2004). Consequently, this educational gap impacted the development and presence of Black professional workers and caused an even larger disparity between Blacks and Whites in terms of class (Williams & Ashley, 2004). Slavery and its legacy impacted Blacks in many ways. The work of Williams and Ashley (2004) document how the gaps caused by poor access and inequality in the area of education impacted both middle class creation and institution building. These types of structural gaps are difficult to resolve and understandably cast doubt about their closure without funding addressing social structure.

BRIEF TIMELINE OF REPARATION EFFORTS

Reparation efforts for African Americans are nothing new and can be separated into four stages (Winbush, 2003). The first stage occurred between 1865 and 1920. Highlights of this stage include Special Field Order No. 15 and Thaddeus Stevens' H.R. 29 bill proposal. Both of these actions called for forty-acre tracts of land to be awarded to former slaves. Also during this period, the United States Treasury Department was sued by Cornelius Jones for 68 million in reparation damages for unpaid cotton labor. These efforts were repealed, rejected and dismissed, respectively. The second stage of reparation efforts occurred between 1920 and 1968. Significant during this stage was the development of a Black nationalist movement that contained distinct reparation efforts by Marcus Garvey, Queen Mother Audley Moore and Elijah Muhammad. The third stage, which included the time period from 1968 to 2001, covered three key events. As part of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, James Forman delivered his Black Manifesto in 1969 which detailed a repayment and empowerment plan to be funded by churches and synagogues. In 1989, Congressman John Conyers Jr. began the first of a multi-decade long series of proposals to convene a committee to seriously and thoroughly analyze both the impact of slavery on Blacks in the United States and its tie to reparations. In 2000, a national bestseller, the The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, was authored by Randall Robinson. Robinson's book led to an immediate and significant elevation of the reparations discourse throughout many forms of media. In particular, a series of debates between Black intellectuals was captured by the internet, West African Review and the Black Scholar regarding the involvement of Africa in slavery and its impact on reparations. The energy from the discourse was important in the development of the fourth stage which is marked by several law suits against institutions and entities that may have profited from slavery. The lawsuits have led to increased public pressure and compliance by many institutions and entities to acknowledge the economic impact of slavery. This brief summary of past and current reparations efforts is not intended to detail the movement as much as it is meant to show that 246 years of slavery were immediately followed by 146 years of reparation efforts.

DAVID HOROWITZ' TEN REASONS TO NOT PAY REPARATIONS

Understandably, reparation efforts have been met with great resistance throughout the years. The resistance was and is not surprising. The very idea of reparations is grounded on the existence of wrongdoing and thus has the potential for the assignment of blame and sustained "finger-pointing" behavior. Beyond the social stigma associated with being grouped into a category of wrongdoer is the individual psychological feeling of guilt (Konstam et al., 2001). The guilt is naturally tied to the existence and development of empathy (Konstam et al., 2001) which can inform a feeling of forgiveness (Konstam et al., 2001; Cehajic et al., 2009) and thus lead to actions intended to reconcile or repair the wrongdoing (Konstam et al., 2001; Cehajic et al., 2009). Cognitive dissonance theory would support that an effective way to reduce the guilt is to either contribute toward paying reparations or internalize a belief and value system that justifies the denial of reparation payment. History suggests that it is easier to do the latter. In doing so, opponents of reparations force themselves to rationalize beliefs and adjust their system of logic to maintain an attitude that remains consistent with refusing to pay. Typically this would require either dehumanizing the victims (Cehajic et al., 2009) or refusing to define them as a victim. Either approach would allow for the reduction of guilt and the maintenance of behavior that opposed reparations. I argue that an unfortunate consequence of either approach to addressing reparations is that the individuals are forced to develop attitudes and beliefs that are possibly uncomfortable and in any other context illogical. Consequently, the individuals position themselves to justify the legitimacy of their illogical stances and create more guilt in the process - thus requiring a larger investment in the illogical stance and a deepening of the uncomfortable attitudes. An exemplary example of this cognitive tailoring was published in Front Page magazine in 2001 by David Horowitz. Horowitz' article provided 10 reasons why reparations for Blacks are a bad idea. The scholarly time spent by Horowitz in response to reparations claims added strength to the legitimacy of the claims more than it demonstrated weaknesses (Tutu, 2003). However, the validity of Horowitz arguments is not the main focus of its inclusion in this article. Allen and Chrisman (2001) effectively analyzed the accuracy and legitimacy of each claim by Horowitz. In their analysis of the efforts Horowitz used to disseminate and construct his arguments, it was concluded that responsibility and accuracy was sacrificed for the production of his arguments. I would argue that Horowitz was conscious of this sacrifice but rationalized his acceptance of unsound reasoning in order to maintain his stance of anti-reparations. Horowitz' article can be used to demonstrate how taking an antireparations stance might lead to the acceptance of the illogical or uncomfortable. Below is the list of the ten reasons by Horowitz, a brief summary of Horowitz' rationalization and my counter-statement uncovering either the acceptance of the illogical argument or uncomfortable attitude needed to maintain the non-reparations stance.

1. There is no single group clearly responsible for the crime of slavery

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the antebellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

It is well documented that Black Africans contributed to the system of slavery in the United States (Gates, 1999; Ray, 2010) and that former slaves bought the rights to many of their relatives (Allen & Christman, 2001). What this statement fails to acknowledge is the significant difference between Black Africans and Whites in participation by degree and intent (Allen & Christman, 2001). Horowitz' argument is not suggesting the non existence of a crime. It is suggesting that the criminal operation included members of the very group being exploited. A small minority of the exploited also "participating" in the exploitation is true for many social crimes (Ali, 2001). It appears as though accuracy is not the primary purpose of this argument. This argument allows an individual to refuse to believe that former slaves possibly owned slaves who were relatives in order to keep families intact. It also allows the individual to believe that not only is the tiny proportion of Africans that contributed to slavery (Allen & Christman, 2001) equivalent to the much larger proportion of non-Africans who contributed, but that they were also more responsible for non-Africans purchasing, trading and kidnapping Africans to assist in the settlement and survival of those non-Africans in the United States.

2. There is no one group that benefited exclusively from its fruits

Black wealth is also the product of American slavery and has made the Black community one of the wealthiest groups in the world.

Black wealth is nowhere close to or on par with White wealth. If Africans would have at least remained indentured servants, it is safe to assume that Black wealth would be significantly higher than what it is today given the evidence of the landownership that occurred during that time. The accumulation of wealth for Blacks did not begin anywhere near the time that Blacks began to reside in the United States. It would be more logical to conclude that Black wealth exists in spite of being the products of slavery instead of accepting the logic that exploiting a group could actually be for their benefit.

3. Only a tiny minority of white Americans ever owned slaves, and others gave their lives to free them

Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?

Our current national debt is around 14 trillion dollars. It is argued that every citizen in the United States owes approximately $44,000 in payment for the debt. Arguably, there is only a tiny minority directly responsible for the national debt. Not everyone was alive or living in the United States during the most significant periods of debt accumulation. Why must everyone else pay? One might argue that according to social contract theory, in order to possess the rights granted to every citizen and live within a system of law and order, one agrees to those laws when they choose to live within and through the government. Existence as a citizen is consent to repay debts accrued by the entire nation. The irony of this statement is that it is clear that the belief is being accepted to support anti-reparation behavior because there were exponentially fewer Black Americans who ever owned slaves and many also gave their lives to free them. Somehow, proportion of participation becomes much more important in this argument than in the earlier one.

4. America today is a multi-ethnic nation and most Americans have no connection (direct or indirect) to slavery

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960.

This argument can be addressed by social contract theory. It is not fair to those who are non-immigrants to have immigrants voluntarily enter the country, enjoy the rights of citizenship, but disclaim any responsibility for national matters if no direct connection to the matter is proven. If a student transfers to a new institution, she cannot refuse a tuition increase designed to pay off past fiscal irresponsibility or university investments due to not being a student when those events occurred. If the individual accepting this argument felt that current Black wealth is truly the fruit of slavery (argument #3), how could they also argue that most Americans today have not even an indirect connection to that period?

5. The Historical precedents used to justify the reparations claim do not apply and the claim itself is based on race not injury

This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. Many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction...If this is not racism, what is?

The irony of this argument is that it is not an argument against the payment of reparations as much as it is an argument against who to pay. The "who to pay" argument is then being used as a reason not to pay. It is implying that a debt is owed and if immediate family members were living, they should and would be paid. However, due to the country being so incredibly delinquent on their payment and all the obvious payment recipients being deceased, then the country no longer owes any money. The logic is clearly being adjusted in this case to support nonpayment behavior when it would not be suitable in numerous other scenarios. Is it safe to assume that if direct lineage to slavery was documented and economic injuries were established, Horowitz' would support reparation payments or is he only adopting the "who to pay" argument out of convenience?

6. The Reparations argument is based on the unfounded claim that all African- American descendants of slaves suffer from the economic consequences of slavery and discrimination.

No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other?

Is it possible that many prosperous Blacks are demonstrating a degree of resilience rather than behaving as the norm reference group? Is Horowitz suggesting that every past recipient of American's reparation settlements should not have received anything if they were at the time members of the middle class? Attributing failure to individual character is a classic way of reducing personal guilt and potential responsibility. This is also an example of conveniently adopting a premise as a consequence of wanting to support a behavior (in this case non-payment of reparations) rather than actually believing in the worth of the premise. If a successful attempt was made to show evidence-based economic consequences of Black codes, Jim Crow and slavery (that ended of 150 years ago), would this validate claims for reparations for individuals taking this stance? What is truly unfortunate about adopting the complete logic is that it makes the individual taking the stance (rather they want to or not) also conclude that lower class Blacks have character flaws.

7. The Reparations claim is one more attempt to turn African-Americans into victims. It sends a damaging message to the African-American community.

The renewed sense of grievance ... is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others-many less privileged than themselves?

The use of the word "renewed" suggests that this argument is responding to a cyclical, fashionable complaint that unfairly leverages the wrongdoings of a select few (who may not have actually done anything). Horowitz further argues that even though a crime may have been committed, acknowledging it will dis-position Blacks so they will not progress. According to Horowitz, Blacks tend to disposition themselves in a similar manner when they cannot achieve what similar others (some even more disadvantaged) can. It is unfortunate that Horowitz uses the cyclical premise as a critique even though many struggles to correct past wrongdoings go through historical stages. Because reparations are not psychologically welcomed by Horowitz, a negative value is placed on this historical cycle. Horowitz is also suggesting that too much attention is being placed on a small group of Americans who allegedly committed a crime. Imagine that based on an immoral premise or scheme, one person was accused of being responsible for a large group of people losing access to the very wealth they helped to generate, and that individual possibly "made off" with their money. While the alleged victims began to prepare for their future, would it be appropriate to suggest that they stop placing their efforts on the act of one individual who may or may not have defrauded them and focus their time and energy more on why some of the "victims" were better able to bounce back? In reference to victim status, if the best psychometricians and psychologists collaborated on an assessment of victimhood and it was clearly established that sincere efforts to pursue reparations actually empowered Blacks rather than created a victim-hood mentality, would an individual supporting this 7th argument then be in favor of reparations?

8. Reparations to African Americans have already been paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances.?

Should welfare, unemployment and affirmative action be used as a form of reparations if they were not identified as programs that recognized that low-income, underemployment and disproportionate employment were direct results of slavery? Is it possible that those trillions of dollars in programs were in the best interest of empire building? Accepting this stance forces an individual to disregard or disbelieve that African Americans were far from the first beneficiaries of welfare programs and were not the group that benefitted most from affirmative action. Unless Horowitz is also arguing that poor Whites and upwardly mobile White women were actually receiving transfer payments to redress historic racial grievances. Should a country's intention to remove inequalities and promote equity for her own well-being be used as blanket with the capacity for covering any past claim regardless of type and nuance? Let's apply this logic to another example. A person promises to spend quality time with a child or significant other, but fails to do so. The child/significant other is later diagnosed with depression. The child is no longer doing well in school and has trouble maintaining friendships and relationships, or the significant other is having difficulty being a contributing partner and is weakening the relationship. The person then takes the child/significant other to a therapist and pays the expense. The person then looks at the bill, stands up and states to the child/significant other, "Do you see this bill? You received quality time when I took your depressed-"self" to the therapist. I should not hear anything from you anymore on this quality time matter."

9. What about the debt Blacks owe to America?

If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

This a very unique and creative argument in that Horowitz acknowledges not only the wrongdoing, but to some degree the magnitude of the wrongdoing. He then uses magnitude as a shield. A president legislation, another country, and a war combined their collective capital to correct the wrong. Because of the efforts needed to correct a wrong, those who were no longer being wronged should be grateful enough to not seek a form of justice in response to being wronged. By the end of this argument, Horowitz' attitude appears to intensify to justify continuing the logic that followed the premise of reversing the question of who actually owes. Unfortunately, the reasoning appears to lack soundness. What if someone physically abused a person and that person was not permitted to seek medical attention. Then after 246 hours of continued abuse, the abused person was granted permission to call 911for medical purposes. Is the granting of the right to call 911 sufficient justice? Let's add a layer of complexity. What if there was another person who witnessed the abuse, conducted business transactions with the abuser, but would also on many occasions courageously protect the abused during the 246 hours of abuse. Would it be reasonable for the witness to argue that their efforts as a witness made justice complete?

10. The Reparations claim is a separatist idea that sets African-Americans against the nation that gave them freedom

For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African- Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.

In this argument, an individual taking this stance would be in support of the very social contract that would make citizens responsible for the collective debt of the nation. Even though reparation arguments have been held by both separatists and non-separatists groups since 1865, the more convenient belief triyg it to reparation is accepted. Similar to earlier arguments, this argument is also implying that an attempt to correct the acknowledged wrongdoing is a companion to ungratefulness. Interestingly, "further isolation" has been added to the argument for not supporting reparations. Sadly, this may be true. An alleged victim of a crime risks feeling alone when she speaks up against the possible perpetrator. Why risk further problems with the perpetrator when it appears as though the perpetrator's power led to the end of the perpetrating?

Unfortunately the ten arguments constructed by Horowitz are informed heavily by a desired outcome that make distortions in logic acceptable. Accepting the distortions allows for the development of beliefs and values that appear justified. Consequently, an individual may feel evidence justifies beliefs and values that characterize Blacks as lazy, government-dependent, greedy, ungrateful and un- American. The climate created by these characterizations is particularly concerning because one could argue that many Blacks have embraced similar characterizations of other Blacks in order to preempt being included under the same umbrella.

THE CLIMATE CREATED BY AVOIDING THE DISCOURSE

The United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States (Almasi, 2009). Expectantly, there were a myriad of responses to this apology. Unfortunately, within the Black community there were strong opinions that arguably functioned to dilute the power of the apology and distance many Blacks from the pervasive negative stereotypes.

Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on." (Almasi, 2009).

...no apology is necessary for the fact that, at that time, it was legal and more importantly only 89 years (King, 2002).

Slavery is not the cause of the Black condition. Illegitimacy and illiteracy are (Green, 2001).

"Their reading, writing and communicating skills become such that everyone can tell they are a slave to government dependency. This is not their destiny, but rather their choice" (Green, 2002).

"reparations are meant to "entertain" black America" and keep historical black leaders current (Martin, 2003).

"White Americans are doing what so-called black leaders will not" (Massie, 2003).

The validity of the previous statements by the Black intellectuals is not as concerning as the type of negative beliefs held by Blacks of other Blacks. These negative beliefs might have formed out of a resistance to explore the issue of reparations and possibly avoid being characterized as government dependent or un- American. I submit that the acceptance and application of illogical arguments and the stance of resistance to further dialogue taken by many play a role in the current achievement gap in the United States.

The unwillingness to engage in a full discussion and thoroughly analyze the impact of slavery has impacted educational outcomes in two critical ways. The first is the creation and maintenance of a climate that leads to underachievement and low academic expectations. Too many Black students have bought in to the negative characterizations of Blacks. The impact of these characterizations on achievement can be best understood through the concept of stereotype threat. The second connection between the resistance to dialogue and educational outcomes can be understood by exploring the role of forgiveness. The resistance to forgive negatively impacts the same relationships that may be critical for improving achievement outcomes.

STEREOTYPE THREAT

Steele and Aronson (1995) coined the term stereotype threat when they observed that the academic performance of African American students was lower when they were aware of the stereotype of African Americans as intellectually inferior. It was argued that simply being aware of the negative stereotype in a situation where the student has the possibility of confirming or disproving the stereotype places both a cognitive and emotional burden on the student (Aronson et al., 2002). It is important to note that the anxiety produced by the extra cognitive and emotional pressure is a by-product of the climate created (Solorzano et al., 2001) and underachievement results from the student's response to performing within the anxiety-provoking climate (Aronson et al., 1999; Solorzano et al., 2001). This is magnified by the finding that stereotype threat's impact increases as the need to disprove the stereotype also increases. Stereotypes become more difficult to disprove as they become more entrenched into and pervasive in the climate and can thus produce a more durable and persistent threat (Steele et al., 2002). The resistance to fully dialogue about reparations and to cling to attitudes and beliefs that make it easier to not support reparations only adds to this anxiety provoking climate for African Americans. The refusal to dialogue is unhealthy for both the perceived wrongdoer and the victim of wrongdoing because it does not allow either party to fully heal. To fully heal, both parties need to forgive.

FORGIVENESS

Forgiveness as a response to a wrongdoing requires a positive change in emotions and thoughts toward the one responsible for the transgression (McCullough & Witvliet, 2001) and it's a decision to no longer allow the wrongdoing to control one's emotions and thoughts (Enright & North, 1998). In the context of the reparations dialogue, the transgressor is both the self and those responsible for slavery. Those who may have benefitted from slavery but are against reparations must engage in self-forgiveness. The negative feelings and illogical arguments they have allowed themselves to develop and apply to African Americans to rationalize an anti-reparation stance and disconnect from any potential feelings of guilt is a roadblock to critical relationships. They are committing a crime against themselves by refusing moral love. This refusal negatively colors future relationships due to the necessity to continue justifying the negative attitudes toward African Americans in favor of reparations. Obviously, this will require an admission of wrongdoing which would be difficult to convince many to do. However, when self-forgiveness truly occurs the individual should be able to maintain an anti-reparations stance while reducing the negative attitudes and emotions (Holmgren, 1998) that formerly accompanied the stance.

Those who might be victims of slavery and are in favor of reparations must forgive those perceived as responsible for slavery in the United States. Of course this does not require excusing or accepting the wrongdoing or even a reversal of a pursuit for justice. It does require the willingness to relinquish the resentment and anger to which they are rightfully entitled (Enright & North, 1998). Unfortunately, in order to get to a point of relinquishing the anger, one must be allowed to acknowledge the right to be fully and completely resentful and angry (Enright & North, 1998). The failure to engage in a full dialogue regarding reparations is not only feeding a climate that is unhealthy for African Americans, but it is also robbing African Americans of a critical piece needed for reconciliation and forward progress.

RECOMMENDATIONS

So how should the discourse proceed? A significant step would be to finally allow for the creation of the Congressional Commission to conduct a thorough analysis of and report on the economic impact of slavery in the United States with the "agreement" that the content within the document is for educational purposes. While admittedly difficult, this agreement will provide an important and safe opportunity for individuals on both sides to fully explore the hurt, anger and guilt necessary to productively move forward.

A free copy of the Congressional Commission report should be provided to any individual, group or institution that requests one. Although there will be some disagreements on its accuracy, allowing vast access to the results of the analysis will produce a common, detailed reference point of dialogue. It may also reduce the likelihood that attitudes and beliefs of convenience regarding the impact of slavery will be prevalent. For many Americans, it will better contextualize and distinguish the normative from the resilient and possibly function to remove many excuses and doubts on both sides. Intentional efforts to reference the Congressional Commission report and its contents should be included in every U.S. history book published after the completion of the report. This will allow for the continuation of the dialogue and the necessary early education of this critical chapter in America's story.

After the Congressional Commission report and the many conversations before and after its release, many Americans will either want to or need to act in response to the findings. A voluntary contribution fund should be established for grants, fellowships and scholarships to targeted Historically Black Colleges. In addition to this voluntary fund, a one-time contribution of 2.46% of the figure established by the Congressional Commission should be placed into the fund as a form of repayment. The payment will serve mostly as a symbolic gesture but will also function to allow the fund to eventually become self-sufficient. To operate and maintain the fund, a democratically elected Black think tank should be established. The Black think tank will be given the charge of using the fund to broadly, but directly support Black education.

CONCLUSION

Given the complexity and uniqueness of slavery in the United States, any reparation solution will include a degree misfit. However, refusing to address the issue of the unpaid labor of slaves and the impact the institution of slavery had on the African American community will be a mistake. Given the enormity and longevity of the current achievement gap in America, continuing to ignore the likelihood that slavery has played a role would not only be a miscalculation of its impact but a misapplication of logic. In addition, it will feed into a climate that allows for the mistreatment of too many Americans based on misconceptions and/or misunderstandings and thus misuse the many critical relationships that are available. If we are to ever become what we have the potential to be as a nation, we must commit ourselves to truly addressing the negative prefix that too many can attach to the root of America.

*Special thanks to Ezra Hyland and Karen Miksch for their advisement.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

REFERENCES

Allen, E. & Chrisman, R. (2001). Ten reasons: A response to David Horowitz. Black Scholar, 31(2):49

Almasi, D. (2009). Black Activists Call Senate Slavery Apology "Useless"; Say It Will Empower the Call for Reparations. Project 21 Members Say Lawmakers Should "Move On" [Press Release]. National Center for Public Policy Research: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.na tionalcenter.org/P21PR-Reparations_062209.html

Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good. C. (2001). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,38:113-25

Aronson, J., Lustina, M., Good, C., Keough, K., Brown, J.L. & Steele, C. (1999). When White men can't do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35:11-23.

Asante, M. (2003). The African American warrant for reparations: The Crime of European enslavement of African and its consequences. In R. Winbush (Ed.). Should America pay?: Slavery and the raging debate on reparations, pp. 3-13. New York: Harper Collins.

Burger, C. & Almasi, D. (2002). Even If Millions Rally on the Mall, Reparations Won't Heal Black America. Huge "Millions for Reparations: They Owe Us" Rally on National Mall on August 17 Opposed by Conservative Black Leadership Group. [Press Release]. National Center for Public Policy Research: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter. org/P21PRReparations802.html

Cataldi, E.F., Laird, J. KewalRamani, A., & Chapman, C. (2009). Dropout rates in the United States: 2007 Compendium report. (NCES 2009-064). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics

Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Gonzalez, R. (2009) .What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12:715-729.

Cook, B.J. & Cordova, A.I. (2007). Minorities in higher education twenty-second annual status report: 2007 supplement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Enright, R. & North, J. (1998). Introducing forgiveness. In R. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness, pp. 3-8. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Goold, B., Hewes, J., Phillips, K., Appio, H., Colton, N., & Godwin, N. (1999). Wonders of the African world with Henry Louis Gates, Jr. [DVD] United States: PBS.

Green, M. (2001). Who should pay for Reparations? Black Americans . . . obviously. New Visions Commentary [Online Commentary] Nation Center for Public Policy: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenReparations501.html

Green, M. (2002). Which Uncle Tom am I? New Visions Commentary [Online Commentary] Nation Center for Public Policy: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenUncleTom 102.html

Greene, J.P. & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college r eadiness rates in the United States. New York NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

Heckman, J.J. & LaFaontaine, P.A. (2007). The American high school graduation rate: Trends and levels. Discussion paper 3216. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Holmgren, M. (1998). Self-forgiveness and responsible moral agency. The Journal of Value Inquiry,32(1):75-91.

King, M. (2002). Slavery Reparations aren't a "free lunch." New Visions Commentary [Online Commentary] Nation Center for Public Policy: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NV KingReparations502.html

Konstam, V., Chernoff, M., & Deveney, S. (2001). Toward forgiveness: The Role of shame, guilt, anger, and empathy. Counseling and Values,46:26-39.

Martin, K. (2003). The Reparations pipe dream and the tax cut reality. New Visions Commentary [Online Commentary] Nation Center for Public Policy: Washington, D.C.

Massie, M. (2003). America has apologized. New Visions Commentary. [Online Commentary]. National Center for Public Policy: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVMassieApology 803.html

Mazrui, A. (2000). Preliminary critique of Gates' African Wonders.West African Review, 1(2)

McCullough, M.E. & Witvliet, C.V. (2001). The psychology of forgiveness. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology, pp. 446-458. New York: Oxford.

Podesta, J. (2007). Opportunities for all: Testimony to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (April 24, 2007). Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Ray, C. (2010). Inverting the slavery blame-game. New African, 496.

Roach, R. (2001). In the academic and think tank world, pondering achievementgap remedies takes center stage. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(1):26-27.

_______. (2004). The great divide. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21:22- 25.

Salzberger, R. & Turck, M. (2004). Reparations for slavery: A reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2001). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The Experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2):60-73.

Steele, C. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68:797-811.

Steele, C. Spencer, S. & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The Psychology of stereotype and social identity. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, pp. 379-440. San Diego, CA: Academic Press;

The Education Trust. (2010, August). Reports reveal colleges with the biggest, smallest gaps in minority graduation rates in the U.S. [Press Release].

Tutu. (2003). In R. Winbush (Ed.), Should America Pay?: Slavery and the raging debate on reparations, pp. 3-13. New York: Harper Collins.

Williams, J. & Ashley, D. (2004). I'll find a way or make one: A Tribute to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. New York: Amistad/Harper Collins.

Winbush, R. (2003). Should America pay? Slavery and the raging debate on Reparations. Harper Collins Publishers: New York.

Yosso, T., Parker, L. Solorzano, D. & Lynn, M. (2004). From Jim Crow to affirmative action and back again: A Critical race discussion of racialized rationales and access to higher education. Review of Research in Educdation,28, 1-25.