History of property deprivation should be considered in reparations debate
I write in response to the diatribe against reparations that appeared in the Prince on Wednesday. Mr. Harkleroad makes some cogent and supportable points — no blacks alive today are children of slaves or were enslaved themselves; further, our federal, state and local governments have dedicated and will dedicate millions of dollars to improving the lot of the thousands of black Americans caught, for whatever reason, in poverty and ignorance. He does, however, neglect some of the valid arguments for reparations.
Though I agree that all Americans are today born free, I would also point out the unavoidable legacy of 250 years of slavery and the ensuing hundred years of institutional racism, interrupted only briefly by an attempt at Reconstruction. I think most people would agree that a child of wealthy parents — who are usually educated parents — has a distinct advantage in America, despite the doctrine of equality under law. Such parents generally spend more money on a child's formal education and can afford to expose the child to enriching opportunities outside the classroom. Furthermore, the child stands to inherit his or her parents' assets, and in turn pass those assets, whether diminished or increased, on to his or her children. Freed slaves, and their children, and their children's children, enjoyed no such advantage — antebellum law prohibited slaves from owning property, and freed slaves did not receive any upon emancipation, thus they began their lives as freed men at a distinct disadvantage. Freed slaves also suffered from a lack of education, and a limited understanding of their economic agency as an independent actor, further restricting financial advancement. Under Jim Crow laws, enacted less than three decades later, black Americans in general experienced the almost complete depravation of citizens' rights, limitations on their employment and thus their earning power, and a nearly constant threat to their lives.
Finally, and most devastatingly for accumulation of wealth, laws and citizens' agreements limited where blacks could buy homes, drastically reducing their ability to accumulate real estate. The impact of these collective experiences lingers today.
I do not necessarily argue for reparations; in fact, I am not sure where I stand on this issue. I do know, however, that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation, Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights Act. All I ask is for an understanding of this when considering the viability of any kind of reparations, rather than a narrowly constructed vituperative attack on the un-American demands of black American citizens. Hannah Foster '03
Reparations debate clouds discussion of responsibility
Like most immigrants, my grandparents came to America for freedom and a better life. By contrast, millions of Africans were forced to emigrate under a brutal system of chattel slavery, which assaulted them not only physically but also psychologically. Slavery destroyed families and tried to eradicate all signs of African culture among slaves. Under Jim Crow, racial superiority became a legally enforceable ideal. This pervasive assault on black minds and culture explains why one cannot divorce the current situation of black Americans from the institution of slavery.
Mr. Harkleroad's historical justifications against reparations lack sufficient grounding in fact. People fought the Civil War for many reasons, white northerners primarily to preserve a Republican system that established slavery in the first place.
The argument that recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day constitutes an apology for slavery lacks credibility not in the least because it contradicts Mr. Harkleroad's own reasoning. If Mr. Harkleroad is right, does not the holiday represent an apology to a second group (modern black Americans) for the suffering of a third group (slaves) at the hands of a fourth group (Congress and the President)?
More importantly, any product reparations strategy does not seek white guilt. The US government did perpetuate slavery and as citizens, we should all share in shouldering America's responsibilities, especially since slavery exacted a moral and psychological toll on whites as well. The larger goal is to bridge the gap in understanding between blacks and the nation. One cannot underestimate the importance of social programs and other measures that have benefited those of all races and circumstances. This does not obviate the need to address the particular problems of black Americans resulting from slavery and segregation. Nor should this absolve black Americans of any responsibility. People ought to hold African Americans to the same standards as others, but this hardly precludes, for example, investment in black businesses and communities rather than hoping that admitting a few blacks to Princeton will suffice. Good values depend on good communities and cultures and I find no good reason to avoid a sensible plan to undermine the vestiges of slavery by singling out struggling African American communities for special help in light of America's historical role in perpetuating the peculiar institution. The law provides that a remedy addressing a pervasive injury to society need not benefit only those directly harmed if the result is a greater benefit to society as a whole (see 115 Harv. L. Rev. 168 for details).
Since I was not in D.C. with Mr. Harkleroad, I cannot speak to the conduct of the crowd there. The anti-white behavior he describes is no less objectionable than that which denies that contemporary blacks still suffer from slavery's effect, and I join him in condemning it. My hope is that Americans and their government can recognize and address the particular needs and nuances of all people, and unify them under a system of freedom and democracy. To me, that's patriotism. Jonathan W. Jew-Lim '04
University will not tolerate infringement of copyrights
Wednesday's Daily Princetonian article, "OIT to pursue limit on video, music uploads," suggests that the University and OIT have little concern regarding illegal downloads of copyrighted materials by students. That is not the case. Both "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities" and "Guidelines for Use of Princeton University Information Technology Resources and Internet Access" make it clear that violation of copyright is also a violation of University regulations and that disciplinary action may result.
OIT is charged with support of the campus network infrastructure, and to maintain the best level of performance possible given constraints and demand. In the mailing regarding restrictions on peer-to-peer uploads, that charge was the only concern that seemed to need mention. We all are members of the University community, expected to be familiar with, and to comply with, the policies and regulations published in the two documents cited above. OIT officials assumed that all of us, including Princeton's students, understand that illegal download of copyrighted materials is not condoned by the University.
In fact, Princeton takes intellectual property rights very seriously. All infringement complaints received by the University under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are addressed promptly and with the involvement of the appropriate disciplinary authorities. Dean of Undergraduate Students Kathleen Deignan has stated that documented cases involving illegal download of copyrighted material will be subject to disciplinary action.
Peer-to-peer file-sharing services, like other media, are tools which can be used within the law or illegally. Many artists, authors, performing groups, promoters and other rights-holders freely offer some works on-line for download and sharing. Some artists even credit file-sharing for increased sales of their backlists.
My own choice as lead sentence for yesterday's article would have been, "You may take what is freely given, but you should give with similar care."
The article remarks that few students have been prosecuted for infringement in the history of file-sharing. Though this may be true, I would surely regret seeing any Princeton student join that number. I hope this letter can help clarify the matter. Rita Saltz OIT Policy and Security Advisor and Princeton DMCA Agent
Read More
Faculty letter to U. admin calling for VP Calhoun’s resignation
Guest Contributors"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
USG's recent statement failed to properly represent student interests
Arman Nemati"From my experiences within USG and from seeing what other student governments have done, I find USG’s inability to directly condemn the University’s arrests to be deeply disappointing."
"From my experiences within USG and from seeing what other student governments have done, I find USG’s inability to directly condemn the University’s arrests to be deeply disappointing."
What’s the rush? Keep the old final exam schedule.
Lizbeth ReyesThe new final exam schedule is detrimental both to students’ academic achievement and mental health during the exam period. Students’ well-being and academic success should take priority over efficiency, thus the University should reinstate the old final exam schedule.
The new final exam schedule is detrimental both to students’ academic achievement and mental health during the exam period. Students’ well-being and academic success should take priority over efficiency, thus the University should reinstate the old final exam schedule.
