Staff editorial: Haunted by our history

Two years ago, university President Dan Mote incited anger and suspicion among black faculty when he declined to issue an apology for slavery's role in establishing the university. "I don't see that the University of Maryland has a particular apology to make on this topic," he said at the time. He argued he hadn't seen conclusive evidence the university had exploited slaves. The claim didn't make sense then - it's undeniable that the Maryland Agricultural College was founded to complement a farm economy running on slave labor. And two years later, an undergraduate team's research points to an intimate connection between the university's origins and slavery. We hope Mote takes this opportunity to revisit the issue and do the right thing.

Students uncovered records showing that parts of the current campus once belonged to slave owners. They found that 16 of the university's original 24 trustees owned slaves, and most university shareholders owned slaves as well. The group also suspects the university's connections to slavery compelled its first president Benjamin Hallowell, an abolitionist Quaker, to resign only a month into his term. A 1912 fire destroyed the university's original construction records, but as history professor Ira Berlin, who led the students, put it, "If slaves didn't lay the brick, they made the bricks. If they didn't make the bricks, they drove the wagon that brought the bricks. If they didn't drive the wagon, they built the wagon wheels."

The evidence adds up to a narrative that only makes sense if the university's founders built the campus with slaves. It is offensive to slaves' descendants if the university's administration can't recognize that much - and it should offend everyone who has benefited from the institution. As a leading public university making claims to social responsibility now, it undermines the university's credibility if it can't own up to its past.

Staying silent in the face of the evidence makes a statement. A few words of apology obviously would not make up for slaves' painful history or do anything tangible to help slaves' descendants. But the message of the research is clear, and if administrators don't respond, it suggests they don't care enough to acknowledge it. There were questions about slaves' role at the university two years ago, and questions remain now. We respect Mote's commitment to fully researching the matter, and hope administrators will shift their focus from what we don't know to what we do. We expect Mote to issue an apology soon.