Should Yale Apologize for Slavery?
Many of Yale's colleges and buildings are named after slaveowners. Even John C. Calhoun, the most notorious pro-slavery thinker of them all, has a college named after him there. Yale is not alone here. Profits from the harsh slave plantations of the Caribbean funded Harvard Law School's first endowed chair. The family that founded Brown made much of its money on the slave trade. Slaves worked on the Princeton campus when slavery was legal in northern states.
The recent discussion of slavery at universities like Yale leads one to ask why all that matters. Many think that a university's taking money made from slavery and honoring those who were slaveholders is simply irrelevant; they say,"We don't believe in slavery now and back then people had different values." So why should we impose our standards of morality on university administrators of nearly two hundred years ago?
But slavery actually was condemned by more than a few intellectual leaders in early America. In the 1680s, shortly after the settlement of Pennsylvania, Quakers, led by Francis Daniel Pastorius, made the first efforts to discourage slavery. Those protests gathered strength in the early 1700s as such people as Samuel Sewell condemned slavery in Massachusetts.
In the wake of the American Revolution, many who were inspired by Enlightenment ideas that taught the fundamental equality of humanity urged the abolition of slavery. Writers such as St. George Tucker, a law professor at William and Mary, proposed the gradual abolition of slavery in the South. The power of the idea of liberty was strong and could have grown stronger with proper nourishment from great institutions like Yale.
People knew slavery was wrong, but the problem was that the leading institutions -- churches, schools and courts -- failed to support antislavery reformers. Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of"Uncle Tom's Cabin," reached the hearts of Americans. Many readers -- it was the best-selling novel in history to that point -- wanted to take action against slavery. But they found it difficult to break free from the constraints of their communities, for many churches, political parties and laws tacitly supported slavery. Stowe pessimistically concluded that"from the great institutions in society, no help whatever is to be expected."
Great institutions such as Yale should not, therefore, escape condemnation by saying that slavery was acceptable at the time. Had there been more support from the great bastions of moral power there might have been change. Instead, Yale took money made from slavery, and named colleges after slaveholders and even pro-slavery politicians.
And it educated others to follow in those steps. It should come as no surprise that its students accepted slavery. While Ralph Waldo Emerson was telling students to reject slavery as an outmoded idea, orators at Yale ridiculed him. When the Amherst College president spoke at Yale in 1839, he laughed at Emerson's idea that students should be taught to think independently.
In the wake of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required northerners to return fugitive slaves to their southern owners, orators at Yale, Harvard and Brown argued fiercely in favor of the act. They vilified abolitionists who broke the law, protecting humans from being sent back into slavery. In history and philosophy classes at universities throughout the country, professors who themselves were slaveholders or beneficiaries of slavery reinforced the belief that slavery was the natural order, that people were not created equal, that utilitarian principles taught that some should be slaves.
There are some lessons in this for us. It reminds us that many times universities are the products and beneficiaries of the powerful and affluent interests (in this case what used to be called the"slave power"). And so universities are often more likely to justify than to condemn those interests. Those who say,"Do not condemn a school for decisions that were acceptable at the time," are just more in a long line of thinkers, stretching back to the pro-slavery advocates of the 1800s, who believe with Alexander Pope that"whatever is, is right." They may honestly, if mistakenly, believe that slavery was morally acceptable in the 1800s. They may believe that universities that attacked abolitionists while honoring slaveholders are free from moral guilt.
Maybe we can learn from Yale's complicity in slavery. Perhaps we can remember Emerson's lesson that it is the duty of the scholar to rethink old ideas and be"the bringer of hope." And it is the job of the universities to lead the way.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
comments powered by Disqus
Asaf - 11/8/2002
Shouldn't Africa appologize for enslaving blacks by blacks who sold them to Arabs who sold them to whites at a time when Europe REJECTED slavery from church and state alike?
Patrick Fagan - 8/26/2001
I must confess that I spent five years in the second largest university in Mississippi, yet I do not know why one building on campus was named the way it was named. I am wondering how many others are in my situation? I am wondering if Yale is being explored here only because it is a prestigious institution of higher learning? Surely it is not the only institution that has buildings named for previous slave owners?
I am also wondering if I should change my last name because my ancestors were slave owners? I think not. People should judge my family for what it does now. I am interracially married. Of course there is a wide difference between a stone building and a human being, but we should still judge Yale for what it does now. Changing names of the Yale buildings--and consequently all the buildings across the country named after slave owners--would be akin to erasing history. Leaving the names as they are shows us how far society has advanced. It is better to judge history than to judge names.
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign