Changing the institutional structures of discrimination is key to the success of any reparations effort and the only way to ensure systems of discrimination aren’t repeated post-aff. That supercharges the TVA and proves state action is key to solving the aff.

The contemporary paradigm for African-American reparations fundamentally fails to address what should be its most vital component. Of the three essential elements of a successful reparations campaign-apology, award, and nonrepetition through reconciliation-the most vital is nonrepetition. In past "successful" reparations campaigns, the offending parties have issued apologies and awards, but have neither challenged nor dismantled the attitudes or infrastructures from which wrongful acts emerged, leaving open the likelihood of wrongful acts occurring again. Any campaign that neglects the nonrepetition element runs the risk of strengthening the status quo. In this Article, Professor Burkett argues that in order for a reparations campaign to be a true success for African-Americans, it must include a nonrepetition element. To do so, the reparations movement must embrace a reconciliation model that is forward looking, and concerned with the methods of deterring future bad acts for ultimate, complete, and successful repair. In the current discourse on African-American reparations, Professor Burkett argues, nonrepetition through reconciliation is woefully underemphasized. The incorporation of the nonrepetition element is particularly important in the American context. From the nation's earliest days, the American political and economic landscape has evolved in a particularly pernicious manner, creating and entrenching a racial and economic hierarchy that persistently subjugates African-Americans and other of-color and lowincome communities. Professor Burkett argues that in this context, a multiracial, multiethnic, and cross-class reconciliation model is vital to the success of the African-American campaign. This broad-based approach, the author maintains, is the only way to ensure nonrepetition. The contemporary paradigm for African-American reparations for slavery and its legacy fundamentally fails to address what should be its most vital component. Any successful reparations must contain three critical elements. The first element on the path to repair is an apology. The second element is a monetary or other award that gives actual or symbolic weight to that apology. However, the true weight of an apology and redress is felt in the commitment by the perpetrator not to repeat the act. It follows the simple lesson taught to children- "sorry" is limited in its effect. One must promise to try, vigilantly, not to commit the act again. An apology and remuneration alone are, therefore, insufficient. The third and most vital element of a reparations campaign is the guarantee of nonrepetition. The current movement for reparations, however, fails to demand and secure this most important element of repair. The movement for African-American reparations thus seeks remedies that fall short of forcing structural change that will produce true social transformation. It makes an impossible request in a hostile arena, and at the same time does little to dissipate the very cloud of hostility that makes the social, legal, and political space so inhospitable. In short, the current movement for African-American reparations simply asks for too little. In the current discourse on African-American reparations for slavery and its legacy, the focus on monetary reparations for injuries suffered by African-Americans is misguided.' The emphasis on reparations with respect to actual monetary losses, as well as psychological and community damages, pulls energy away from efforts to address larger systemic changes that need to occur in a race-riddled society. Furthermore, in accepting traditional forms of reparations, African-Americans aid in perpetuating the very system that allows for their persistent subjugation and the subjugation of other of-color communities. Although a number of proposed remedies focus on building programs, arguments demanding monetary liability are often said and heard most loudly, and, to be sure, money transfers are integral to erecting necessary programs. This focus on money transfers or payments is based largely on the belief that American society is so riddled with racism and its permanency that monetary awards are the only true means of change for which African-Americans can hope. Closing the economic gap between black and white Americans is a vital component in remedying the plight of African-Americans. It is impossible, however, for money allotments to have substantive and lasting meaning beyond temporary currency in the marketplace. Rather than risking reinforcement of the status quo with respect to widening class divides and the formidable power of monied groups, challenging the economic structure and the manner in which economic and political power exists in America is the conceptual core around which reparationists must frame their argument and the ensuing debate. Thus, I contend that the reparations movement should focus on the larger goal of transformation by meeting the demands of the nonrepetition prong. I fully acknowledge that this is a far-reaching task, but it is necessary to repair the damage done. Realization of any number of alternative futures that may pull American society out of its current loop requires an adequate response to centuries of legalized subjugation followed by extralegal oppression, individual and systemic. This may well demand a fundamental shift in America's economic, political, and social structures. While crafting and implementing differing structures may be a daunting task, African-Americans must begin the long march toward realizing these alternative futures. The reparations debate itself provides an incomparably valuable opportunity for all Americans to come to terms with the truth of their history. It is an historic moment that offers a chance to rediscover, or perhaps introduce, compassion in and for all Americans. This debate provides unparalleled potential to explore the racial and economic hierarchies that have defined American social construction for over three centuries. Yet the dangers of pursuing reparations without faithfully pursuing the third element of repair are great, as African-Americans risk perpetuating American social hierarchy by reshuffling the players without dismantling the game. To be clear, I am not the familiar dissenter in reparations debates.3 I do not believe that reparations claims are without basis. In fact, in light of the centuries of indignities suffered by African-Americans, reparations are absolutely warranted.4 I instead seek something qualitatively different from what many of the most enthusiastic reparations proponents advocate. I am seeking reconciliation-and a concomitant guarantee of nonrepetition-through profound social change. In Part I, I briefly survey the history and contemporary claims of the African-American reparations movement. I then evaluate the viability of the current reparations paradigm, foregrounding the peculiarly individualistic and historically prejudicial American context within which those claims are brought. I seek to highlight the characteristics of the American political economy on which current claims rely, but which are themselves vital targets for effective reparations. In Part II, I argue for a redefining of the African-American reparations movement, focusing on a restructuring that can meet the mandates of nonrepetition. I look to the Japanese-American reparations campaign and argue that the Japanese-American experience provides not a model for emulation, but a crucial cautionary tale. The failure to address nonrepetition in obtaining reparations reinforces the political, social, and economic status quo. In Part III, I expand upon the potential dangers of reparations pursued within the current paradigm and argue that the most important failing of the contemporary reparations struggle is its limited scope. A limit in scope indicates dwindled optimism about fashioning an alternative future. This diminished optimism has serious consequences: as John Torpey poignantly declares, "[w]hen the future collapses, the past rushes in.",5 I conclude by arguing for the infusion of a grander vision of social justice in African-American claims, and by advocating for an alternative reparations campaign focusing on structural change. My purpose here is not to prescribe a particular roadmap for meeting the mandates of nonrepetition, although I do offer some suggestions. Instead, my aim is to initiate a discussion among African-American reparationists that will shift the focus to the vital need for a movement centered on nonrepetition. Indeed, a fundamental ideological shift in the movement is essential to repair the very brokenness inextricably interwoven in the American cultural machine-a brokenness that produces and reproduces the economic and racial subjugation on which this country has historically depended for its prosperity.