The University can make reparations to the descendants of slaves in the United States through "atonement," Roy Brooks, the Warren distinguished professor of law at the University of San Diego, told an audience that filled two-thirds of Salomon 001 Wednesday night. Brooks explained his vision of reparations that benefit the descendants as a group, rather than as individuals, and allow institutions that participated in or supported slavery to apologize.
The lecture was the second in a series of five presentations on reparations this semester sponsored by the University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice.
Brooks spoke for about an hour, explaining why he believes reparations are necessary, what forms reparations should take and how the University can atone for its participation in the slave trade centuries ago.
Brooks began by thanking Brown for "having the courage as well as the humanity" to embark on such an in-depth study of slavery reparations. He explained that to him, awareness of the situation and willingness to negotiate were the most important steps in the reparation process.
"Institutions are holding themselves responsible for the past atrocities of slavery and Jim Crow laws. They are trying to make amends for past atrocities," Brooks said.
The next step would be to establish the proper method for apology and reparation, he said. Brooks drew a clear line between the well-known form of reparations, known as tort, and the form he advocates, known as atonement.
Tort reparations involve litigation in which African-Americans who claim to be victims of slavery sue an institution and go to court in an attempt to win financial compensation.
Tort reparation is known as "compensatory" and benefits only individuals, not large groups of people. Brooks said compensatory reparations are ineffective because they inflate racial contention and don't involve sincere apology on the part of the perpetrator.
Atonement, on the other hand, calls for a direct apology from an institution without litigation, followed by rehabilitative reparations, which benefit sectors of the black community, on the part of the institution.
"Atonement focuses less on the victim than on the perpetrator. ... It is forward-looking, perpetrator-based and racially conciliatory," Brooks said.
According to Brooks' model, there are four steps involved in a sincere apology by a "perpetrator" such as the University. The institution must confess its deed, call that deed an atrocity and repent for committing that atrocity. Finally, it must beg for forgiveness from the victim.
However, Brooks added that the process does not end with the apology.
"Saying sorry isn't enough," he said. After apologizing, the institution must offer reparations. The victim must then judge the reparations and, if he or she finds them sufficient, forgive the perpetrator and work toward reconciliation.
In the case of Brown, Brooks had several suggestions for rehabilitative reparations that would serve to aid and educate the Rhode Island community. He suggested building a memorial dedicated to educating the public about the contributions that slaves and the slave trade made in the early history of the University.
"This injects social capital into the local African-American community," Brooks said.
Brooks said the University could also establish an atonement scholarship available to African-American students whose ancestors were slaves.
Another option, involving Brown students of all racial backgrounds, would be to require some students to work for a predetermined number of years in the African-American community.
Brooks stressed that however the University chooses to atone, what is important is that it is able to identify with the victims' plight and seek to rectify its crimes.
Students attending the lecture had mixed reactions to Brooks' ideas.
"I'd like more specificity. If he's so sure about his ideas, he should have examples of local areas where it's worked," said Daliso Leslie '09.
"I thought there were some holes in the argument," said Tyler Smith '09.
Both Leslie and Smith also found reasons to praise Brooks. Leslie said he appreciated some of Brooks' suggestions for Brown's possible slavery reparations.
"I liked the idea of getting a certain amount of applicants to work in the African-American sector," he said.
Smith approved of Brooks' gentle treatment of the perpetrators, saying he was glad that Brooks avoided inflammatory comments.
"The best part was when he acknowledged that learning to forgive the perpetrator, even knowing what they did was wrong, is a crucial part to amending the situation," he said.
Leslie agreed. "He was able to organize the argument without intensifying the racial divide," he said.
Both students agreed that the lecture itself was engaging, and that the audience was surprisingly interested and active. Smith, especially, was impressed by the extent to which the Brown community seemed to care about the subject of reparations.
"It's the first lecture I've been to where the audience didn't have to be persuaded. There were more questions than could be answered," Smith said.
