Legal Commentary

The three sheaves of wheat on the Harvard Law School coat of arms (top), derived from the family crest of Isaac Royall (bottom), may be fairly said to represent the labor of slaves.

Harvard Law School was founded with money amassed through slavery.

This is a fact that HLS, my alma mater, does not try to hide. But it is a truth that is not exactly advertised either. If you visit the ?Our History? page of the law school?s website, you get a somewhat-whitewashed version of the school?s heritage. More than a third of the 311-word synopsis of HLS history reads as follows:

The Law School traces its origins to Isaac Royall, who in 1781 left land from his estate in nearby Medford to Harvard University, with the proceeds intended to "endow of a Professor of Laws at said college, or a Professor of Physics and Anatomy." Harvard took the opportunity to fund its first chair in law, and the Royall chair continues to support an HLS professor today, more than 200 years later.

In 1806, Royall?s heirs sold the rest of his estate and used the funds to establish a school of law at Harvard University. The Royall family coat-of-arms -- three stacked wheat sheaves beneath the university motto, Veritas -- was adopted as the school?s shield.

What this account omits entirely is that Isaac Royall was a slaveholder ? his donated estate was built from slave labor and the slave trade.

I appreciate that the issue of how Harvard Law deals with its slave-money origins raises a set of very difficult questions. (A very thoughtful and wonderfully engaging discussion by Janet Halley, Harvard?s current Royall Chair, can be found here.)

Nonetheless, I think there is one simple question of fairness that transcends the historical, political, and social complexities: Shouldn?t HLS acknowledge Royall?s slaves as it does all other benefactors?

Surely they are benefactors. We know that the slaves were not paid the wages they were owed for their labor. So, to borrow a concept from remedies, it seems only fair that Royall?s slaves should, in retrospect, be awarded something like a constructive trust on their unremitted earnings. That trust property, having been converted to charitable contribution, leaves a residue of acknowledgement of giving. That acknowledgement is currently possessed, posthumously, by Royall. It seems only equitable to shift that res to the account of the slaves, or at least allow them to share as co-tenants.

I think it follows that, at a minimum, Harvard Law ought to acknowledge the slaves? contributions in the school website?s historical narrative. And I think a tangible statement on campus ? a wall-mounted inscription somewhere ? would very much be in order. Many of the slaves? names are known and are listed by The Royall House Association. Those individuals should be acknowledged. Using the information found on the Royall House Association?s rolls, I imagine the inscription might read as follows:

IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE INVOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SLAVES OF THE ROYALL ESTATE FOR THE FOUNDING ENDOWMENT OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL:

HECTOR

QUACO

RUTH

NAN

CUFF

PETER JUNE

CUFFEE

PETER

FORTUNE

CAPTAIN

BLACK BETTY

ABBA

QUACOE

DIANA

JOHN

NANCY

BETTY

GEORGE

SARAH

JACOB

JEMMY

ABBA

ROBIN

COBA

WALKER

NUBA

TRACE

TOBEY

PRESENT

CATO

BARRON

NED

HOUSE PETER

ROBIN

QUAMINO

SMITH

PHILLIP

TRACE

SUE (SUSANNAH)

JONTO

OLD NEGRO MAN

SANTO

GIRL 6 YEARS OF AGE

OLD COOK

GEORGE

ABRAHAM

BETSEY

NANCY

COOPER

HAGAR

JOSEPH

MIRA

PHEBE

PLATO

STEPHY

DIANA

JOSEPH

BELINDA

JOSEPH

PRINE

PRISCILLA

BATHSHEBA

NANNY

AND OTHERS WHOSE NAMES ARE LOST