In a debate that ended in a tie, Cambridge University and Northwestern students argued Monday night for and against reparations for slavery.
The Cambridge team argued for reparations, proposing monetary reparations and a government apology. NU debaters argued that reparations for slavery would not end racism but would overlook other oppressed groups.
Cambridge debater Kirsteen Macleod first addressed the logistical problems of distributing money to all the descendants of slaves. The government could give funds to organizations, which would then pass the money on to black communities, she said, adding that the burden falls on government because it “represents the political will of the people.”
Next, Annie Kastanek of the NU debaters approached the podium. Kastanek, a Weinberg senior, said the NU team recognized that slavery was a crime against humanity.
“It’s not about outrage,” she said. “It’s how to address outrage.”
Slavery was only “a system of a greater racism” in society, Kastanek said, and racism extends beyond individual groups. Other oppressed minority groups also should receive reparations, she said.
Kastenek pointed out that racism didn’t end with slavery and that blaming racism on one institution shifted blame from individuals. If conditions didn’t improve after reparations were paid, people would blame blacks for their own plight, she said.
Rob McCallum elaborated on the Cambridge plan, explaining that U.S. corporations should contribute to reparations, because they profited from slavery.
“There’s a direct link between the economic prosperity of America today and the institution of slavery,” he said, adding that companies would be “named and shamed” if they didn’t contribute.
Weinberg sophomore Geoff Garen went on to explain how reparations might lead to oppression. Reparations are rooted in the past and destroy momentum for social change, he said.
After a series of questions from the audience, Will Hooker of the Cambridge team began the last round. He said that although his team was concerned about modern-day racism, that wasn’t the topic of the debate.
“Reparations rely on an issue of identifiable guilt,” he said. “Slavery is an identifiable guilt.”
Hooker asked the opposing team why they thought they were born with four times the resources as blacks.
“Do you think it’s something in the water?” he asked. “Or do you think it’s because of the consequences of slavery?”
Brian McBride, a Speech graduate student, said reparations for slavery wouldn’t end present-day racism.
“The Supreme Court allows individuals to be stopped on the basis of race alone,” he said. “That is discrimination.”
McBride said reparations for current injustices were needed. He said it was dangerous to say slavery is the cause of racism.
James McDermott closed his team’s arguments by saying the Cambridge plan would make sure no government ever “got off the hook” for slavery.
Garius Grove, an NU graduate student, ended the debate. He said that to claim blacks are the only ones who deserve reparations denies the suffering of others. He said the Cambridge plan would never address more subtle forms of racism.
“Racism preceded slavery and still exists,” he said. “Slavery was a product of racism.”
Grove said his team supported some reparations but but that they should not be based on slavery because that was a denial of personal guilt. Audience members voted on the team they thought presented the best arguments. The vote resulted in a tie.
