The Inquirer’s extraordinary two-part editorial last week on reparations for slavery may have seemed to readers to have come out of the blue.
But the editorial board members involved in framing the pieces say the paper’s stance resulted from nearly a year of reading, thinking and talking about this contentious issue.
Pragmatism, patience and hallway diplomacy, worthy of George Mitchell, played a role, too.
The two pieces were not signed because, like all editorials, they represent the voice of the newspaper. But they were published only after they were accepted by the full board, composed of 13 members.
The Inquirer called for a national dialogue to openly acknowledge the horrors of slavery; atone with actions by the federal government, and reconcile the hurt so America can evolve into a society that embraces everyone.
The editorials endorsed legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, for a national reparations commission. The paper said Congress — and not a lawsuit — was the place to start bringing the nation together.
I’m not aware of any other major newspaper taking a stand on reparations in recent years. Reaction from our readers was swift, strongly worded and mostly negative. The response — 300 letters, calls and e-mails — was not surprising, given the topic.
Readers’ Editor Kevin Ferris, who writes about race for the board and whom I think is one of the most fair-minded people at the paper, was the driving force behind the editorials.
The board began talking about the issue about a year ago after the publication of Randall Robinson’s book, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks.
The initial discussion by the board — 11 whites and two African-Americans, men and women with roots in Philadelphia as well as Nebraska, California, and rural Pennsylvania — mirrored tensions in the country over the issue.
“We had the worst conversation,” Ferris said of that first discussion. “It’s exactly the kind of conversation that can happen” in this country about this subject. Reactions were strong, and opinions ranged all over the map.
Chris Satullo, editor of the editorial page, recalls the fractious discussion, too. “I was cool to the idea,” he said.
The challenge, Satullo said, was to suggest ideas that “might help America move beyond the stale conversation about race it seems to be having.”
Ferris began reading extensively, drawing on readers’ views on race that had appeared in Community Voices and talking with national and local leaders. Just as important, he started impromptu discussions with colleagues, engaging them on what they would accept as the paper’s stance.
“It’s part of the Quaker in me,” Ferris said. “There was a lot of writing, explaining and talking to people.”
In January, Ferris told Satullo that he knew how he wanted to frame the editorials. A model calling for acknowledgment, atonement and reconciliation — inspired by Desmond Tutu, who led South Africa’s reconciliation commission — would be the most powerful.
Satullo was leery, but willing to take a look at draft editorials. What changed his mind? This paragraph, which told him the federal government had unfinished business:
“That government, acting for white people, allowed slavery for the first 76 years of its existence. That government, acting for white people, stood aside for almost 100 years as atrocities were committed against freed slaves and their descendants. That government must act now for the sake of all the people and take the lead in making amends.”
“The whole thing looked different to me,” Satullo said. He asked the board to review the pieces, and this time, the group was much closer to consensus.
Ferris responded to his colleague’s suggestions and tinkered with the editorials but managed to keep points he thought were central to reconciliation. He understood at a gut level something a whole nation needs to know.
“If there is to be a reconciliation,” Ferris said, “you need everybody.”
