Recently, pundit David Horowitz placed an advertisement in 13 college newspapers. The ad is Horowitz’s manifesto proclaiming that reparations to African Americans as payment/apology for enslavement would be bad for America and “racist too.” Horowitz’s assertions struck not a few people as racist, and the outcry has been sounded far and wide, with mud being slung from all sides, Horowitz in the middle, a happy ringmaster at the sight of such copious debate/discord dug up with his well-honed provocation skills.

It seems most of the anti-Horowitz/pro-reparations camp has offered little more than reactionary rhetoric, acrimony for Horowitz and a tangent into the free speech arena, which is a shame. Because while no one (including yours truly) in this particular space and time can help coming off as reacting to Horowitz, the opportunity to have a frank discussion on the issue of reparations shouldn’t be squandered. While this volatile issue has been circulating among the Beltway, academic and sociopolitical circles for some time, it has yet to have a serious outing amongst the general public (save that episode of The West Wing).

Perhaps the one bright light in the din of sound and fury has been author and editorial writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Ph.D., whose concise, well-thought out response to Horowitz is less a lambasting of the conservative pundit and more a cool-headed, factual outlining of the reasons for reparations.

Among Hutchinson’s assertions:
No, long-dead southern planters are not solely responsible for slavery. The U.S. government bears responsibility as well. “It encoded slavery in the Constitution in article one,” Hutchinson says. “This designated a black slave as three-fifths of a person for tax and political representation purposes. It protected and nourished [slavery] in article four by mandating that all escaped slaves found anywhere in this nation be returned to their masters.”

Yes, there is a precedent for paying African Americans and other groups for past legal and moral wrongs. “There was no national outcry when the U.S. government made special indemnity payments, provided land and social service benefits to Japanese Americans interned during World War II,” Hutchinson says. He also points to payments for past wrongs such as 1997’s $10 million payment to the black survivors and their family members victimized by the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, conducted in the 1930s by the U.S. public health service.

Additionally, Hutchinson asserts that many of America’s financial success stories — the bedrock for the United States’ world dominance — including banks, shipping companies and investment houses made fat profits from the financing of slavery and slavery-related enterprises.

Those things and other aspects of the argument — continued economic and social discrimination and similar legacies of slavery — make an excellent case for reparations. Not that the idea doesn’t have some major stumbling blocks.

For instance, those who champion reparations say the idea is not to send all black folks a check, but to set up a fund to support AIDS/HIV education, bolster underfunded inner-city schools, and expand job skills training, computer access, literacy training and other social services for blacks still living in poverty. I think that sounds great in theory. But the people who came up with this plan really need to offer a detailed explanation of how exactly this will work if it’s to be taken seriously in Washington and in America.

First of all, who will run this new agency for the distribution of reparation benefits? Who decides who runs this agency? How will African Americans who are descendents of slaves — as opposed to descendents of 20th century immigrants — be identified? Most importantly, though, why should we believe that the spate of reparations-funded social service programs will be the great equalizer?

I think those are the hard questions, the deal breakers, and they ought to be addressed thoughtfully — and soon. And reparations ought to be taken seriously. But I don’t believe they can happen and be successful without the entire nation really coming to terms with this much-hated issue. After all, many Americans still believe they don’t have anything to do with what happened “so long ago.” Plus, unlike Hutchinson, I don’t believe that this issue won’t fuel more animosity toward blacks (one of Horowitz’s arguments). I think more people than would admit it believe Horowitz’s racially loaded assertion that welfare has been a form of reparation for blacks.

In spite of those roadblocks, though, I do believe it is the right thing to do. After all, we’ve never had a problem pointing the finger at Nazi Germany and other destructive, inhumane regimes around the world. It’s way past time we tend to things at home.