Horowitz debates slavery reparations advocate in a packed McCosh 50

In a heated debate last night, Dorothy Lewis — a leader in the movement for reparations for slavery — and David Horowitz — the movement's most outspoken antagonist — presented their views to a packed McCosh 50.

The debate was sparked by Horowitz's recent campaign to place advertisements — titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too" — in college newspapers.

In an interview before the debate, Lewis, who is co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, called Horowitz's ads "a dishonor to the memory of the millions of [black] lives that have been lost [to slavery]."

Last month, The Daily Californian at the University of California-Berkeley printed Horowitz's ad, but apologized for printing an ad they perceived to be racist after widespread campus protests.

Horowitz — author and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture — was adamant in his stance, calling students "little left-wing fascists" for rejecting his views they perceived to be too conservative.

At the outset of his opening statements, Horowitz criticized University history professor Sean Wilentz for supporting some issues but refraining to contribute to a "civil discourse" on the issue of reparations.

Horowitz attacked the idea of reparations — the issue that has brought him national prominence. "It is stupid. It is political insanity," he said.

Horowitz also criticized The Daily Princetonian for its "slanderous" editorial — that ran April 4, the same day as his ad — which called Horowitz's opinions "racist." Several audience members booed Horowitz after that remark.

Lewis told the audience that reparations are a debt that needs to be paid for the practices of sharecropping, lynching and Jim Crow laws that followed emancipation. She said the United States government has the burden of paying that debt to black Americans. "An emancipation without reparations is a farce," she said.

But Lewis did not stop there. "White supremacy is alive and well today," she said, and later remarked "We're still in a holocaust in America."

The reason Lewis advocates reparations, she admitted in response to a question, is not that it would economically aid America's black population. Instead, she reasoned, "When you have a debt that needs to be paid, it needs to be paid."

Horowitz, on the other hand, said, "It's 130 years too late."

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Though on the surface the two views may seem unreconcilable, during the debate Horowitz emphasized that he is, in fact, an ardent supporter of using federal funds to improve the lives of anyone who needs it. What he said he does not support is allocating funds specifically for black Americans, some of whom may not even be descendants of slaves.

This is why his ad calls reparations racist, Horowitz explained. "There's a lot of anger in it," he said, concluding that if the movement fails, it will only have served to embitter the black American population.Horowitz said he is a major proponent of a federal bill to provide $100 billion in scholarships to students in qualifying schools — $7,000 per year per student.

He later added that he does not believe money could be an easy cure to the problem of a poor educational system.

Questions were taken from the audience — in written form — after the two guests had each made their opening remarks and rebuttal. One question asked of Lewis whether a half-black American should receive reparations. In a response reminiscent of the one-drop policies of a century ago, Lewis stated concisely that the person in question "is black."

Lewis also advocated the creation of institutions that would serve special black needs, such as a version of the National Institutes of Health for conditions specific to people of African ancestry. She also proposed that blacks control their own educational systems.