Slavery: Not up for moral debate

Monday, March 31, in the middle of Main Street at the South Dakota State Student Union, was a white board with the statement, “The slave-trade was morally evil. Agree? Disagree?”

Disagree? What do we mean disagree? Why is slavery–a human rights atrocity–up for debate?

Equip Campus Ministries is no stranger to prompting the student population with eye-catching, controversial debates. These debates are all a part of what they call, “sidewalk epistemologies” – epistemologies meaning the study of knowledge acquisition. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea: introducing differing opinions to wide-eye, studious young minds, giving them a chance to develop their own beliefs on real-world topics that affect today’s generation.

According to their page on Jack’s Club Hub, they express that their goal is to, “equip students to humbly proclaim, explain and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ.” With all respect, what does the SLAVE TRADE have to do with JESUS CHRIST? In my humble opinion, slavery is the last thing that should be on the debate table.

I sat down with Luke Perkins, volunteer adviser for Equip Ministries to get his perspective on things. Perkins said, “We almost didn’t do it because I thought it would be too boring—no one disagrees that the slave trade was morally evil. The point [was to discuss] why you think it’s evil. If there’s no absolute standard, can you really call anything evil? That’s the moral reasoning we were getting at.”

Trying not to make this opinion 500 more words than it needs to be, I’ll spare you the analysis just on the tone-deaf absurdity of calling the slave trade boring.

On another note, I think a discussion about morality and God is entirely different than opening a debate on whether or not people should have been enslaved.

If moral reasoning was truly their purpose, a question like, “How do you know something is morally evil?” would have been far more fitting than insisting students ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the slave trade.

An additional detail I’d like to mention: on the white board was the option to check “Agree”, the slave-trade was morally evil or “Disagree”, the slave-trade was not morally evil”. There were three checks for “disagree”. To my surprise, Perkins confirmed it was the members themselves who put those marks there. “Every time we do a [sidewalk epistemology], we always put in a couple of checkmarks … it’s just standard operating procedure.”

Perkins further defended himself saying it was to “demonstrate to students that they could write on the whiteboard” and “get the conversation going.” Uh-huh, you mean the white board that explicitly said “Agree” and “Disagree” with a line down the middle? I think the student population is familiar with polls.

Additionally, if manufactured controversy was needed to “start the conversation,” it seems a lot like they just wanted to use the shock value to wrangle people into speaking to them.

The visual alone—three tallies seemingly endorsing the slave trade—was enough to alarm students who could only assume some of their peers viewed slavery as acceptable. The carelessness of Equip’s prompt and presentation lends legitimacy to racist perspectives, even if that allegedly wasn’t the group’s intention.

Perkins acknowledged as much, saying, “If we can avoid the perception that we condone racism, we want to. Maybe next time we’ll phrase it differently.” Yet for many, that admission doesn’t erase the harm already done.

Put bluntly, Equip wasn’t creating discussion. They promoted rage-bait and the fabrication of controversy. Their goal wasn’t education, but rather provocation. And when religious organizations use outrage to gain attention, they sacrifice the very morality they claim to uphold.

Equip provided a space for racist rhetoric to be expressed. It should go without saying, failing to remove any space for racism to propagate is more than a lapse in judgment. It’s deliberately neglectful and a complete disregard for the harm it causes.

I know, writing a whole article on a group of people who are simply employing their “right to free speech” sounds exactly like the “snowflakes” reddit keyboard-warriors tend to speak so much about. But hear me out: freedom of speech should not excuse casual racism. The First Amendment protects people from government suppression—it does not protect them from accountability. Therefore, when speech creates an environment where racism is encouraged, it ceases to be an issue of free speech and becomes a question of ethical responsibility.

SDSU is a PWI (predominately white institution) with an estimated 83% white population. While many students might see a “debate” on slavery as just another conversation starter, students of color passing by that whiteboard may experience it very differently. They’re already the minority, and it isn’t fair or realistic to expect them to challenge every hostile or ignorant remark—especially when they’re not sure it’s safe to do so.

I asked Dr. George Tsakiridis, a religion and philosophy professor at SDSU, for his perspective on the situation. The professor said, “you [Equip Ministries] may be creating hostility without knowing it. And I don’t know anyone’s intention, but people aren’t always going to raise that issue, especially if they don’t feel it’s a safe space to have that discussion.”

In other words, people who have never felt targeted by race-based discrimination might overlook how a “casual” debate on slavery can silence marginalized voices.

Now, the question arises: how is Equip able to get away with showcasing such harmful rhetoric?

According to Event Services, which oversee tabling in the Union, the facility can only manage scheduling and placement, not content. As long as the group follows basic registration procedures, the university itself doesn’t step in to review or limit what’s put on display.

The lack of faculty intervention explains only part of the problem.

The main issue lies with the all too-common-phrase: “If it doesn’t affect me, it’s not my problem.” I’ve found that this mindset thrives at SDSU, where the majority of students come from small, rural towns with little exposure to diverse communities. That lack of experience isn’t inherently wrong—but choosing to ignore the consequences of harmful rhetoric is. At that point, it’s not just ignorance, It’s compliance. And compliance in racism is racism.

Commentary, next page

Commentary continued

As I spoke with Perkins about the importance of acknowledging race and exercising care when tackling topics like slavery—especially in a predominantly white institution—he gave a small, knowing laugh each time I used the word “white”. His visceral reaction felt telling.

Finally, Perkins said, “to say that there is a race called white, race called black, I reject that, personally. I think [race] helps form the foundation of racism.” I tried for clarification afterward and asked if he was saying that race isn’t real. He confirmed and reiterated, “ I actually think and would advocate strongly that there’s one race ultimately, the human race.”

I think in that moment, it became painfully clear how Luke Perkins and Equip were able to overlook their ignorant and harmful rhetoric. Attention folks! We have found another victim of white fragility propaganda!

Let’s analyze Equip’s statement further, “The slave-trade was morally evil.” First, the use of “was” implies that slave-trade is a thing of the past – it isn’t. Nonetheless, understanding we are in the middle of the good ol’ U.S. of A, I can gather context clues to understand that these disciples are referencing the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Transatlantic Slave Trade consisted of the kidnapping and torture of an estimated 12.5 million innocent African people (up to 40% being children) to be used for the sake of free labor in the Americas. This atrocity occurred from the 1500s up until the late 1860s (the 13th Amendment was enacted in 1865).

Did You Know? Due to an overlooked documentation issue, the last state to ratify the 13th amendment was Mississippi in 2013! Only took them 143 years.

I’m not here to give you a full history lesson. We are grown adults, I expect us to be educated on something as pivotal to history as slavery was, as I expect a college level club to understand too. Despite this, Equip has demonstrated their neglect to understand that this is a serious, and real topic that caused the death of millions. Its after effects are still impacting people today. The slave-trade is not something to exploit as a ploy to promote your god. Christian students look to Equip for guidance. The club has a responsibility.

To his credit, Perkins did acknowledge some responsibility, saying, “Maybe next time we’ll phrase it differently.” It’s a start, but when the same volunteer adviser openly dismisses race as “not real,” it’s clear there’s far more to learn. True accountability demands more than simply rephrasing a prompt, it requires recognizing the realities of systemic racism, both past and present, and understanding how these issues still harm people today.

Debates can be important. But when real suffering is reduced to a rhetorical exercise, the result is not intellectual growth—it’s harm. The massacre and abuse of millions should never be up for debate. Equip, SDSU, and every student on this campus must recognize the weight of their words and actions (or lack-thereof). We are responsible for creating an environment where racism is not entertained, but eradicated. There is no nuance.