Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree is not in favor of reparations for the African-American descendants of slaves, but he is leading efforts to sue the federal government for slavery reparations. Ogletree explained this apparent contradiction in the course of a recent debate on reparations between himself and Boston University Professor of Economy Glen Lowry in Collis Commonground.

Ogletree, arguing in favor of reparations, detailed his plan to win reparations from the federal government in a court of law. Ogletree and a group of tort lawyers, all of whom have previously won $1 billion or more in settlements and all working pro bono, along with several prominent academics and experts, are planning a series of reparations lawsuits. Besides the federal government, they plan to sue institutions that once invested in and profited from slavery, including Yale, Harvard, Brown, and as Ogletree half-joked, "perhaps even Dartmouth." They also plan to sue several major corporations with historical links to slavery, though these are yet to be determined. Also to be determined is the total number of clients that Ogletree's group will gather as plaintiffs and how much money the group will sue for (though Ogletree discussed a rough high-end estimate of $10,000 to $50,000 per person for roughly 15 million blacks, which equals $150-$750 billion). What is clear is that the group will be bringing a major suit in the near future, one that could easily result in the largest payment of reparations in U.S. history.

Yet these reparations would not be paid to the descendants of slaves. Ogletree explained that they would be paid into a large charity fund that would be used "for the benefit of the poorest blacks:" those who have "not benefited from affirmative action." Ogletree compared this reparations plan to the Marshall Plan. According to Ogletree, the fund would help to rebuild America's black communities much as the Marshall Plan helped to rebuild Europe.

Ogletree cited several reasons why such a lawsuit is necessary. He detailed the race-based biases that persist in American law enforcement, and then expanded this argument by detailing the history of American discrimination against blacks from slavery to Jim Crow laws to the persistent racial economic inequalities of today. "We still have a pervasive racial divide," Ogletree said. We've tried every other solution and none have worked." He pointed to the failure of the civil rights movement to obtain genuine equality for blacks, and the persistent failure of the federal government to pass the legislation necessary to improve black communities and provide opportunities for the poorest African-Americans to succeed in American society. In the absence of the appropriate legislation, "the only course is a lawsuit." As Ogletree put it, "it's not a popularity contest...I don't need your vote."

The unique nature of the reparations trust fund reveals the primarily political goals of Ogletree's group of lawyers and academics. As Ogletree admitted to BU's Glenn Lowry during the debate, "The cause of reparations would be moot if the problems of integration and equality did not still exist." Ogletree's lawsuit is not really about securing justice for the descendants of slaves; rather it is an attempt to solve the economic problems of today's poorest blacks. Ogletree himself freely admits it.

Obviously, this approach raises ethical and political issues about the role of American courts in formulating public policy and the reaction of the American public to such significant non-legislative appropriation of taxpayer money. It is these issues, rather than questions of whether African-Americans as a group ought to receive money from the federal government for the slavery endured by their ancestors or whether racial bias still exists in America, that will dominate the public debate in the near future.

They certainly dominated the debate in Collis Commonground. After Ogletree detailed the history of African-American inequality at length, Lowry (like Ogletree, an African-American), arguing against reparations, began by stating, "I agree with 97% of what he just said."

"I don't take any pleasure in arguing against reparations," Lowry told the mostly-white audience of roughly 100. He described how his wife told him he was crazy for arguing against giving money to his "own people". It would be much easier for him to argue for reparations, but he "can't do that, precisely because I care about my people and...our country." He emphasized the ethical and political problems inherent in Ogletree's lawsuit, which he characterized as essentially legislation by other, nondemocratic means. "That is the key question," said Lowry. Are we going to use the courts or the legislature?" He argued that the court victories won by the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's had little to no effect until legislation was passed supporting their conclusions. And, unlike lawsuits like Brown v. Board of Education that helped mobilize congressional support, a reparations lawsuit would "make it far less likely that the [necessary] political coalitions will come into existence around these issues."

Lowry then went even further in arguing against reparations, characterizing them as racially biased. He argued that many of the problems of America's poor blacks stem more from being poor than being black. As he put it, "There are no racial solutions in the 21st century to these problems." Furthermore, the fact that the black poor descend from slaves "does not give them preferential access to justice over the white poor."

He suggested that there may be a significant political backlash from whites and non-black minorities, and worried that, after reparations, those in power would "simply be able to say, 'You negroes have been paid!'" every time the black community complained about inequalities. The reparations would also almost certainly be unpopular among many whites, latinos, asians, and perhaps even wealthy blacks who would receive no money and whose tax dollars would be redistributed to poor blacks.

Lowry concluded by telling the audience that "There's no alternative to politics," and that the only way to solve the problems of black communities is through federal legislation and community responsibility. He agreed that racial biases still exist in American law and politics, but emphasized that blacks must avoid the victim mentality and must take the initiative to improve their own situations.

Ogletree began his rebuttal by saying, "If I had a conviction that [legislative action] was possible" then the lawsuit would be unnecessary, but, " I don't have any confidence that the political process would be able to change this situation." He cited President Bush's desire to cut back on social spending, and told Lowry, "I would be willing to not go to court if you could show me any evidence that a progressive coalition was forming."

Ogletree then told the audience that he saw reparations as a personal quest, an obligation he had to his people and his ancestors, whom he imagined telling him "You have made it [financially and socially] and now you're telling me that you're not prepared to stand up and fight?"

Lowry responded that although his position is "more difficult" to argue so passionately, he stands by his conviction, "We cannot delegate our responsibility to agents...or look for a shortcut." As attractive as it seems, "a check won't solve problems," and the political consequences of reparations may end up hurting Ogletree's clients in the long term. He again emphasized racial unity, saying that blacks face "a long hard road fraught with difficulties...and we black people cannot go by ourselves."

Neither man could be said to have "won" the debate. Both professors were eloquent, though Ogletree certainly had more rhetorical skill. Ogletree is well-intentioned and his stories of racial biases in police and political practice are compelling. The question-and-answer session following the debate, however, seemed to at least support Lowry's contention that reparations are potentially a very divisive issue.

The white audience members who asked questions seemed strongly unenthusiastic about reparations (as were several of the black audience members). One told the lengthy story of his immigrant ancestors who have lived in poor white communities for several generations, oppressed by the same economic and corporate practices that Ogletree accused of oppressing blacks. He then asked whether they too should qualify for reparations. Ogletree disagreed, "Your ancestors were never, ever, ever, considered property in America." Lowry chuckled and chided Ogletree. "The reparations argument invites this kind of diversion from the real issues."

A second white audience member questioned the ethics and legality of Ogletree's trust fund proposal. He then attacked Ogletree's emphasis on only the black poor, asking, "If I were an adopted child of a poor black family, would I be eligible for reparations?" Remarkably, this antagonistic question (Ogletree answered "no") was asked by a student wearing a "Nader/Laduke 2000" T-shirt, suggesting that the reparations debate may be split along racial rather than partisan lines. Lowry emphasized this danger, warning against opening the "Pandora's box of essentialist biological determinations in politics." Any conclusions drawn from just a few audience members are of course preliminary, but it seems that the opposition to reparations among citizens whose ancestors had no involvement with slavery or who feel they shouldn't be punished for something they themselves would never support will be a force to be reckoned with.