Ivy League school vows to earmark $100mn to make amends for ties to slavery
An internal committee commissioned by Harvard University has published an exhaustive inquiry into the prestigious school’s history and ties to slavery and the study of eugenics, university president Lawrence Bacow announced on Tuesday, adding that the school was setting aside $100 million to “make amends” for its past transgressions.
Harvard profited from “the beneficence of donors who accumulated their wealth through slave trading; from the labor of enslaved people on plantations in the Caribbean islands and in the American South; and from the Northern textile manufacturing industry, supplied with cotton grown by enslaved people held in bondage,” the report, published on Tuesday by the Presidential Committee on Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery, revealed.
Indeed, “more than a third of the money donated to or promised to Harvard by private individuals came from just five men who made their fortunes from slavery and slave-produced commodities,” including cotton, the report found.
Bacow initially formed the committee in 2019 in order to probe the school’s “historic ties to slavery – direct, financial, and intellectual.” Its report found that from 1636 to 1783, the school enslaved 70 people, some of whom were responsible for caring for the university’s presidents, professors and students.
Harvard didn’t just benefit from slavery – it took concrete steps to quash abolitionist sentiment on campus, according to the committee, which made a point of countering the popular narrative that places New England at the center of the “antislavery moment” and in particular casts Harvard’s home state of Massachusetts as a “hotbed of opposition to slavery.”
Harvard’s medical school admitted three black students in 1850 but subsequently expelled them following complaints from white students and alumni, and only admitted an average of three black students per year as late as 1940, according to the report, which noted that Harvard was still promoting the study of eugenics – central to World War II-era “race sciences” – at the time. Harvard’s women’s college, Radcliffe, denied housing to its few black students.
Additionally, Harvard Law School’s first professorship was established with the profits of the slave trade in the form of a bequest from Isaac Royall Jr., a rich slave merchant who left the school a hefty sum in his will in 1781. The university incorporated elements of the family’s coat of arms into its law school seal, an issue which became controversial in 2016, leading to the retirement of the seal and Royall’s denunciation as “the son of an Antiguan slaveholder known to have treated his slaves with extreme cruelty.”
Many such problematic “early benefactors” left their names on buildings and professorships and their images in statues sprinkled throughout campus, according to the report, which found that “the color line held at Harvard” despite the official collapse of slavery following the Civil War. Harvard’s longest-serving president and other prominent academics were key figures in the study of eugenics, a pseudoscience used to justify racial segregation in the US and abroad – most infamously in Germany under the National Socialist regime.
The report recommends that the school’s $100 million “Legacy of Slavery Fund” be “preserved in an endowment and strategically invested,” and Bacow has confirmed that while some of the funds will be available for “current use,” the balance will be held in an endowment. Some of the planned projects include expanding scholarship opportunities for descendants of slaves in the southern US and Caribbean, partnerships with historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and reaching out to build relationships with the descendants of those who were enslaved at Harvard.
“Harvard benefited from and in some ways perpetuated practices that were profoundly immoral,” Bacow wrote in his letter accompanying the report, arguing the school bears “a moral responsibility to do what we can to address the persistent corrosive effects of those historical practices on individuals, on Harvard, and on our society.”
Recent intercommunal violence in areas of West Darfur, Sudan, that has left scores dead, including two health workers, must stop immediately, a senior official with the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Thursday.
Colombian presidential candidate Gustavo Petro sits down with NPR and talks about his time in a guerrilla group and proposals to tackle poverty and climate change.
(Image credit: Edinson Ivan Arroyo Mora/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The US House of Representatives has passed a non-binding bill calling for the assets of wealthy Russian individuals to be used to support Ukraine
The US House of Representatives passed a non-binding bill on Wednesday, calling on President Joe Biden to impound the assets of wealthy Russian individuals believed to have ties to the Kremlin. Under the plan, confiscated capital would go toward supporting Ukraine.
Named the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act, the bill was backed by 417 lawmakers, with eight voting against it.
The document urges the US president to “confiscate any property or accounts subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, valued over $2,000,000, and belonging to Russian energy companies or to foreign persons whose wealth is derived in part through corruption linked to or political support for the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers behind the bill, explained that under the legislation US authorities could seize luxury villas, yachts and airplanes belonging to wealthy Russian individuals and companies that have been sanctioned by the U.S.
According to the text, the assets should then be “held, used, administered, liquidated, or sold,” with President Biden using the funds “for the benefit of the people of Ukraine.” The money could be earmarked for “post-conflict reconstruction in Ukraine, humanitarian assistance,” as well as “assistance provided to the security forces of the government of Ukraine.” On top of that the confiscated assets could be used to “support refugees and refugee resettlement in neighboring countries and in the United States,” and fund “technology items and services to ensure the free flow of information to the Ukrainian people in Ukraine,” including what was described as “items to counter internet censorship by Russian authorities.”
The bill calls for the establishment of an interagency working group, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the helm, tasked with confiscating assets belonging to foreign individuals who are believed to have links to the Kremlin.
Among the eight lawmakers who did not support the legislation were representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties, known for their radical liberal or conservative views. The group included representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) as well as Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas).
An identical bill bearing the same name was introduced in the Senate back in March.
The latest piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives came a day after Attorney General Merrick Garland said during a congressional hearing that he “would support legislation that would allow some of that money to go directly to Ukraine.”
ROME, Apr 27 (IPS) – This is an op-ed by Mario Lubetkin, Assistant Director-General of FAOTwo months after the start of the war, on 24 February, the data on the substantial increase in the cost of food products, the rise in prices and shortages of fertilizers, the destruction of land and plantations in Ukraine, the sanctions, the difficulties with the transport of cereals from the world’s main granary, represented by Russia and Ukraine, and the massive migrations, especially from rural areas, are just a few aspects that confirm the pessimism that had been generated after the outbreak of the conflict.
