DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 27, 2017 8:38:22 GMT -5
I do not listen to NPR as a general rule (it's like listening to paint dry) but this podcast lost me when it cited R.J. Cellini, a former litigant against Georgetown in the Woltering, et al v. Georgetown University Alumni Association, Inc., et al lawsuit led by Manuel Miranda.
Cellini is an advocate for a narrative that falsely assigns responsibility to Georgetown University actions that took place outside the aegis of the College.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 27, 2017 8:49:23 GMT -5
. Although the university recently held a Mass for reconciliation. It's hard to imagine a more useless gesture.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 27, 2017 9:48:53 GMT -5
. Although the university recently held a Mass for reconciliation. It's hard to imagine a more useless gesture. Guess you missed that Texas Democrat's phony hunger strike...
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 27, 2017 14:39:06 GMT -5
I do not listen to NPR as a general rule (it's like listening to paint dry) but this podcast lost me when it cited R.J. Cellini, a former litigant against Georgetown in the Woltering, et al v. Georgetown University Alumni Association, Inc., et al lawsuit led by Manuel Miranda. Cellini is an advocate for a narrative that falsely assigns responsibility to Georgetown University actions that took place outside the aegis of the College. Hmmm. I don't listen to any radio, but NPR (both news and classic music).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Apr 28, 2017 12:25:04 GMT -5
I had somehow missed this until a friend (who is not connected to GU in any way) brought it to my attention. NPR's Planet Money podcast did a thoughtful two-part episode on Georgetown and the descendants of slavery. Part I is emotionally affecting and does not always paint GU's current administration in the best light, but I hope everyone who cares about Georgetown will listen. Part II is less focused on Georgetown specifically and more broadly about the issue of financial reparations, but still worth listening if only to wrestle with the issues it raises. Although the university recently held a Mass for reconciliation that got some coverage in campus media, I have not seen any reporting on whether any of the descendants were offered admission this year. The podcast suggests that several applied and some may have been promising candidates. Of course you would never want to subject those students to unwanted publicity (or suggest they were not otherwise worthy of admission), but it would be a great story to be able to show some tangible benefit from this effort. I just finished. The first part as Jack said dealt with descendents of the 272 finding out they were related to slaves sold by Georgetown, and approached it from their perspective - understandably the names of campus buildings didn't matter to them, and a lot of what the University laid out as findings/actions to take was seen as "Georgetown apologizing to itself". I don't know what to make of Cellini - he's either a guy who has a lot of political range - in the tech industry in Cambridge, conservative Republican, joins Miranda's suit against Georgetown, and yet spends ten thousand dollars out of his own pocket to find descendents of slaves owned by the school - or he's got some sort of vendetta against the school and this is a vehicle to bankrupt the school and burn things down. The second part was, well, frightening. It's Planet Money, so the focus is supposed to be on the economics, and here's where they discuss the economics of reparations. The most common number thrown around is a billion dollars for the descendents of the 272 - basically the entire endowment. Will say this - whoever in University communications didn't get DeGioia in front of Noel King really, really screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 28, 2017 13:41:19 GMT -5
It is only frightening if Georgetown wants to do it. And even if the university leadership wished to, paying funds from the university endowment to third parties would be a flagrant violation of the President's and Board's fiduciary duties. In any event, you can't make a legal entity pay damages for conduct that occurred 180 years ago--which it didn't even engage in, but was instead an indirect beneficiary--and was perfectly lawful at the time. This issue is about morality and humanity, and the indelible original sin of the United States, which we still haven't appropriately addressed as a people. The shock that some experienced when learning of this issue is illustrative--EVERY institution in this nation benefited directly or indirectly from slavery. We still resist coming to grips with that fact when we single out an institution like Georgetown as somehow being especially blameworthy. It is important to study and understand, and I am proud of how Georgetown handled the issue. But let's not pretend that it is any different from any other college or company or financial institution or governmental entity or old-money family that pre-dates the Civil War. The difference here is (1) historical records and (2) a desire to study the issue.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Mar 15, 2021 21:59:40 GMT -5
“In one of the largest efforts by an institution to atone for slavery, a prominent order of Catholic priests has vowed to raise $100 million to benefit the descendants of the enslaved people it once owned and to promote racial reconciliation initiatives across the United States. “The move by the leaders of the Jesuit conference of priests represents the largest effort by the Roman Catholic Church to make amends for the buying, selling and enslavement of Black people, church officials and historians said.“ “Georgetown, which was founded by the Jesuits, has promised to raise about $400,000 a year to benefit the descendants of people enslaved by the order. The university, which holds a seat on the board of the newly created foundation and contributed $1 million to get it off the ground, plans to distribute the first grants this year.” www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/us/jesuits-georgetown-reparations-slavery.html
|
|
2ndRyan
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 329
|
Post by 2ndRyan on Mar 16, 2021 16:10:14 GMT -5
In the summer of 1971 prior to enrolling at Georgetown, I and presumably the rest of the incoming Class of 1975 received a copy of "Georgetown University Origin and Early Years" by John Daley SJ. I have gone back and perused the book a couple of times since 2015. My quick review didn't disclose a single person of color, free or enslaved. Fifty years ago they were invisible to me and charitably, I would like to think they were invisible to Father Daley. No longer. I used to think of reparations as guilty self-flagellation. In a masterpiece of conflation, I would ask do the English owe reparations to millions of Irish who were driven from their island in the nineteenth century? No longer. A willingness to face the truth and a sincere effort to make amends will set us free.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 16, 2021 18:11:41 GMT -5
In the summer of 1971 prior to enrolling at Georgetown, I and presumably the rest of the incoming Class of 1975 received a copy of "Georgetown University Origin and Early Years" by John Daley SJ. I have gone back and perused the book a couple of times since 2015. My quick review didn't disclose a single person of color, free or enslaved. Fifty years ago they were invisible to me and charitably, I would like to think they were invisible to Father Daley. No longer. I used to think of reparations as guilty self-flagellation. In a masterpiece of conflation, I would ask do the English owe reparations to millions of Irish who were driven from their island in the nineteenth century? No longer. A willingness to face the truth and a sincere effort to make amends will set us free. Some quick online research on Rev. Daley indicated he wrote "Origin and Early Years" as fairly young Jesuit. It was published when he was 41. And, given that any historian is only as good as his source material, there was probably none because the College didn't have any black students until 1961, when it welcomed international students from Africa in a trial program, and 1962-63, when the first African-American students apparently enrolled. This was referenced in the John Thompson book in that had he signed with Georgetown, not only would he have been the first African-American on the basketball court, but in the entire College. It's important to note that for those who think they uncovered the Mulledy story, it had been printed many times before, including the 1988 bicentennial history by Robert Curran (a former Jesuit) and in various issues of The HOYA through the years. The Jesuit plantations in Maryland and Brazil were also not a secret. Many years ago, I was at a faculty lecture on the topic which noted that the GU campus was not arable land and not a destination for the slaves owned by the Jesuits on the Eastern Shore, but therein lies the confusion previously promoted by the NY Times that Georgetown was more complicit and less of a by-product of the sale. That the most recent Times article revisits R.J. Cellini is another issue entirely.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Mar 16, 2021 23:52:02 GMT -5
I guess that first African was Peter Amene, who completed his four years in three while being one of the best players on the soccer team. He is now a doctor in Arizona (according to the alumni directory), while I thought he had gone back to his native Kenya. Apparently, he went to med school in either Stanford or Michigan or both.
There were two African-Americans in my class of 1966, one unfortunately, a chem major like myself, did not make it to graduation.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 17, 2021 2:05:19 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,620
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 10, 2021 16:13:01 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,620
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 12, 2021 13:49:47 GMT -5
All publicity is good publicity, right?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,620
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 12, 2021 13:53:42 GMT -5
More seriously:
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 12, 2021 15:01:42 GMT -5
All publicity is good publicity, right? "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." This going out of business story is false and Georgetown never corrected it.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,620
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 12, 2021 17:33:57 GMT -5
All publicity is good publicity, right? "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." This going out of business story is false and Georgetown never corrected it. Which part, specifically, do you consider false? The claim that the university was in dire straits and may well have had to shutter - or at least suspend operations - without the revenues from the sale?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 12, 2021 18:28:29 GMT -5
Which part, specifically, do you consider false? The claim that the university was in dire straits and may well have had to shutter - or at least suspend operations - without the revenues from the sale? Many things, but there are four points that, for whatever reason, Georgetown has failed to defend and correct. 1. That "Georgetown University" sold 272 slaves. False. This was on authority of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus. 2. That slaves were sold as a result of the Panic of 1837 and/or in lieu of a financial exigency.False. The sale was approved before the Panic. Georgetown had no financial exigency at this time and paying off the bank loan was a CYA move before the Superior General knew the full extent of McSherry's mismanagement. And FWIW, the debt was later cut in half by McSherry by increasing enrollment from 131 to 187. 3. That the sale was in defiance of Rome.False. The sale was approved by the Superior General. 4. That the proceeds of the sale went to Georgetown College.False. Only 15 percent of the sale was directed to the bank loan. The rest went to support the Maryland province and some went to the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Jul 15, 2021 10:03:49 GMT -5
All publicity is good publicity, right? My computer here blocks Twitter, so apologies if I'm responding to the wrong message. Don't think it's otherwise been mentioned, but S. Epatha Merkerson is descended from the 272 and was featured on an episode if "Finding Your Roots with Hendy Louis Gates" on PBS that re-ran just last night. The episode noted, but didn't really delve into the Province vs. University distinction, but it did note that the sale was sanctioned by Rome.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 15, 2021 11:31:55 GMT -5
My computer here blocks Twitter, so apologies if I'm responding to the wrong message. Don't think it's otherwise been mentioned, but S. Epatha Merkerson is descended from the 272 and was featured on an episode if "Finding Your Roots with Hendy Louis Gates" on PBS that re-ran just last night. The episode noted, but didn't really delve into the Province vs. University distinction, but it did note that the sale was sanctioned by Rome. It's arcane but the distinction between province and University is important. Georgetown University is owned by the "President and Directors of Georgetown College", of what we know today as the Board of Directors (and its executive committee known as the Corporation). Prior to the mid-1850's, the Corporation was selected by the Jesuit Provincial, who himself was selected by the Jesuit Superior General in Rome. The Provincial was the de facto president of every Jesuit organization in the province, be that the College, Georgetown Prep, Holy Trinity, Gonzaga, the seminaries, the future Loyola Blakefield and Loyola College...and the plantations. But the plantations were no more owned by "Georgetown University" than they were by Gonzaga or Holy Trinity. And, to clarify (or confuse) further, Georgetown was the only one of these to have a federal charter distinct from the Province as a whole. Sometime in the 1850's, the Provincial selected the president (with the approval of the Superior General) and installed him as rector of the Jesuit community, giving the president temporal and spiritual authority over the Jesuit community at GU, which encompassed the regents, deans and a majority of the faculty into the early 1960's. Rev. Gerard Campbell S.J. (1964-1968) was the last Georgetown president named by the Provincial and Campbell then opened up the board to non-Jesuits circa 1966.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,620
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 15, 2021 23:19:56 GMT -5
Which part, specifically, do you consider false? The claim that the university was in dire straits and may well have had to shutter - or at least suspend operations - without the revenues from the sale? Many things, but there are four points that, for whatever reason, Georgetown has failed to defend and correct. I feel like we've been through this before, but sure, one more time for the people in the back... Factual accuracy is important, of course, and the University has gone about that in exactly the right way, taking the lead in funding and leading scholarly research into the details. By doing so, it has largely ensured that the legitimate/quality sources reporting on the topic are getting their facts correct. The ones that are not legitimate/quality are not worth worrying about, and so there is no need for the University to engage in aggressive defense lawyer tactics that come off as hairsplitting in an attempt to avoid admitting culpability. That would be exactly the wrong thing to do. In that vein... 1. That "Georgetown University" sold 272 slaves. False. This was on authority of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus. It's arcane but the distinction between province and University is important. NARRATOR: It is not, in fact, important. Seriously, though: what we are discussing here are claims of institutional and community culpability and moral debt, not a legalistic argument about the University as a liable 'corporate person' as distinct from X subunit of the Society of Jesus as a legal entity. Playing org chart "Wuzn't me!" games feels palty and pathetic in light of the great moral crimes under discussion. An analogy I know I have deployed here before: imagine if Disney executives had committed unethical acts for the greater glory of The Mouse and its holdings...including 'The ESPN Family of Networks.' Imagine further than the executives running Disney were a small cadre, constantly either dual-hatted or rotating through leadership positions at ESPN and other corporate holdings. Would anyone make the following argument: "Well, look, yes these acts were done to bolster the entire organization, of which ESPN is a critical part...and funds were used to pay off ESPN debts... and yes it was the same people in charge of all of it... but look, ESPN had absolutely nothing to do with this!" No, no they would not - and if they did, they'd be laughed outta town. At the end of the day, "the University" doesn't do anything - its people do. And the University's leadership was culpable in this sale. It doesn't matter if McSherry, Mulledy, etc were wearing their Maryland Province hat rather than their Georgetown hat at certain exact moments, except in a narrow legal sense that is not salient here. 2. That slaves were sold as a result of the Panic of 1837 and/or in lieu of a financial exigency.False. The sale was approved before the Panic. Georgetown had no financial exigency at this time and paying off the bank loan was a CYA move before the Superior General knew the full extent of McSherry's mismanagement. And FWIW, the debt was later cut in half by McSherry by increasing enrollment from 131 to 187. "...No financial exigency" is a rather definitive statement to make about the financial state of a highly complex enterprise 180 years ago...in the absence of modern GAAP accounting and the like...in the midst of clear mismanagement, as you yourself just stated... More to the point: the "Georgetown had..." part is misleading for the reasons described in #1. You can't really say 'the Maryland Jesuits' finances were a mess, but Georgetown was fine!' when the latter was a constituent part of the former. Here, even the Disney/ESPN comparison doesn't get the point across strongly enough, for Disney could hypothetically sell/spin off TV networks and online verticals in a way that mid-19th century Jesuits could not do with a college. What were they gonna do, sell it to the Anglicans as a viable profit center? One should also note that complex financial transactions do not happen at a single moment in time with a single decision point. Obtaining some approval(s) in 1837, prior to the Panic, does not negate the fact that the sale was ultimately finalized and consummated in 1838, when the larger economic picture had evolved. 3. That the sale was in defiance of Rome.False. The sale was approved by the Superior General. The Church's stance on slavery during this period was... not-unequivocal, to put it gently. There were plenty of divisions within the hierarchy - "Rome" was not all of one mind. But the engineers of the sale got the answer they wanted from the people they needed in their eccelsiastical chain of command to provide the needed fig leaf. The culpability for the sale is not solely on the West side of the Atlantic - true. 4. That the proceeds of the sale went to Georgetown College.False. Only 15 percent of the sale was directed to the bank loan. The rest went to support the Maryland province and some went to the Archdiocese of Baltimore. This is a similar semantic problem to how "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean "*Only* Black Lives Matter" and the seemingly anodyne statement "All Lives Matter" is anything but when juxtaposed against the race-specific counterpart to which it acts as a rejoinder. "The proceeds of the sale went to Georgetown College" does not mean "The proceeds of the sale went to Georgetown College alone." But again, see points #1 and #2. Georgetown benefitted from funds used to prop up the Maryland Jesuits' overall operations in ways big and small. To suggest otherwise is pointless and ultimately counterproductive to the cause of justice.
|
|