Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should Russell Yates Face Criminal Charges?; Should Reparations Be Made for Slavery?

Aired March 26, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

You know, every day, I tell you how much I enjoy getting e-mail from you. And I like knowing what you are thinking. For instance, during the Andrea Yates trial, you used it to tell me what your thoughts were about her husband, Rusty. A lot of you insisted that somehow, he shared the blame for the deaths of his five children.

For example, Paul in Ohio said Rusty Yates is just as guilty as his wife. And Teresa in Connecticut said Rusty Yates has been pretty heartless concerning his children. Well, people were e-mailing the Harris County D.A.'s office as well. In fact, he said he got gazillions -- that's a word he used -- suggesting Rusty should be charged with something. So, he's looking into it with the blessing of Andrea's family. And we're going to talk to attorneys Joe Roach, Jeffery Leving and Catherine Crier about that in just a minute.

And, of course, you are going to e-mail me, right? TALKBACK@CNN.COM. You can also give me a buzz -- I like the phone calls as well. We'll put you on the air. That number is 1-800-310-4- CNN. Right now, here's what else we have in store for you today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): Major U.S. corporations are accused of profiting from slavery. Should they be ordered to pay for the past? A lawsuit against Aetna insurance, C-S-X Railroad and FleetBoston Financial Corporation claims African-Americans deserve reparations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are not just talking about regrets (ph) to slavery. We are talking about the moral issue of paying people for crimes against humanity.

NEVILLE: Also, should Russell Yates share the blame in the deaths of his five children? Texas prosecutors consider child endangerment charges. Could you make a case?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Well, we know some attorneys who can make the case. Joe Roach is a former assistant district attorney in Houston, Texas. And he is going to be joining us as well as Jeffrey Leving, is a custody attorney and author of "Father's Rights." And Catherine Crier is a former Texas prosecutor and host of "Catherine Crier Live" on Court TV. And Catherine was inside the courtroom for most of the Andrea Yates trial. So I begin with you, Catherine.

CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: Hey, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Hey. Does it just surprise you at all that public outcry through e-mail prompted the Harris County D.A. to look into possible charges against Russell Yates?

CRIER: Certainly everywhere I have gone, and my e-mail has been flooded as well, why isn't this man charged? I do not think you will see the D.A. take action unless the public ground swell is so outrageous, because what they did was they walk into a criminal court and they said we have the culprit. We have the woman who, with intent, not insanity, with intent, killed those five children. Now, to divide that off and say someone else was partially responsible is going to be a hard argument to make.

NEVILLE: Jeffrey Leving, are you surprised that public outcry prompted a look into this?

JEFFERY LEVING, ATTORNEY: I'm not surprised because of two reasons. One, I believe gender bias does play a role here. The gender roles were reversed here. Nobody would be looking at prosecuting the mother. Secondly, the father here does not appear very sympathetic to the general public. And because he is supporting his wife, who has done such a terrible crime, people can't understand how a man, how a father could support his wife after she took the lives of their children. So that is very outrageous in the eyes of the public, but it is not a crime. It is not a crime to be unliked. And maybe Russell Yates should have hired a publicist before speaking to the media.

NEVILLE: So, do you feel that Russell Yates is in a catch-22, because had he not supported his wife, then he would have looked like a bad guy. And you are saying that perhaps, because he has been standing by his wife, that he may be coming across as a bad guy?

LEVING: That's correct. Whatever he does is going to be wrong. It is a terrible situation, and what we must remember is that Russell Yates is a victim too. He lost his children. He lost his wife. He lost his family. And to me, personally, it is morally offensive to look at him as a potential criminal defendant.

CRIER: Oh, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Catherine.

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: Arthel.

NEVILLE: You know what? I am sitting on your side on this one, Catherine. I am not sure I see him as a victim here. CRIER: I'll tell you what, I have got the Texas penal code. If a person commits the offense -- if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, leaves those kids basically, child under 15, in imminent danger or of death, bodily injury, physical or mental impairment.

You tell me that that man, after catching his wife with a knife to her throat, involuntary commitments, her suicide threats, her threats against the first baby when it was born all of the doctor's information, and the fact that she was literally catatonic during the days before the drowning with a best friend saying, please Rusty, get this woman to a hospital, you say he did not leave those children recklessly or negligently? Don't buy it.

LEVING: He did not leave those children recklessly...

CRIER: Don't buy it.

LEVING: ... recklessly alone with the mother. And I have the Texas criminal code in front of me too, and I interpret it quite differently than you do.

CRIER: That's all right, counselor.

LEVING: First of all, the mother saw a psychiatrist two days before the murders and that psychiatrist, two days before the murders, took her off a very strong anti-psychotic drug and sent her home.

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: The doctors weren't living with her 24 hours a day.

NEVILLE: Right. What's your point about that, Jeffery?

LEVING: My point about that is that the father is not a doctor. He's not a psychiatrist. He is not capable or competent to make a medical/psychiatric diagnosis.

CRIER: Give me a break. This guy is a NASA engineer. He is a bit of a rocket scientist.

NEVILLE: Jan is standing here with me. Jan, what are your thoughts on this?

JAN: Well, ultimately, she is the one that made the decision. She committed the act and she was the one at home. She's the one that murdered her own children. So, she is the one responsible.

NEVILLE: OK.

LEVING: And I agree with that.

NEVILLE: Laura, what do you say about that?

LAURA: Well, I have to agree that maybe she did actually commit the act. He has to take responsibility. I think that all of this loyalty that is late placed, maybe would have been better spent if he had been loyal to her and helpful to her in advance of this. He knew what her mental state was, and yet he chose to leave them on a daily basis.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Catherine, I would like to ask you a question? That is at this juncture, what type of charges could be brought against Russell Yates?

CRIER: Well, the most likely would be child endangerment. You have something below involuntary manslaughter. We are talking about criminally negligent homicide. But I do not expect any charges. I think the attorney is -- the counselor is right, that he is not going to be charged. So the moral culpability is tremendous. But if you were going after him, it would be for child endangerment because there is no way, given her mental state, that the analogy about leaving those five kids at home with a loaded gun is not appropriate.

NEVILLE: Tony?

TONY: We need to be realistic here. The, you know -- what is the husband supposed to do? He has to work. He has kids. Unless he knew for sure, which I do not think that was the case, that she was going to commit these crimes, he has got to go to work. He has got to support his family. This sounds all too unrealistic. I mean, this is the real world. Is he supposed to leave his wife or have the kids taken out of the home just because he suspects she might be a bit unbalanced?

CRIER: Suspects?

TONY: I do not think he ever -- unless you can prove, and I think you can't, and I think that is just why you are talking about endangerment and not murder, unless you can prove he knew that she would definitely do this or there was a great possibility she would do this, you are on a fishing expedition.

CRIER: The statute requires recklessness. There are different degrees of mental culpability, and that's why we have murder, manslaughter and various reckless charges. Recklessness is the standard that he would be charged with.

NEVILLE: OK. Russell Yates could also...

LEVING: Yes. I...

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Jeffery.

LEVING: I do not see how this father could be considered reckless. Just because he worked, he paid the rent, he brought money home to put food on the table, how is that being reckless by being a good provider? Now maybe he is not the most likable person in the world, but he is not a criminal. And there are a lot of dads out there doing exactly what he is doing, trying to support their family when mom isn't working. And he also was focusing on getting help. He obtained help from his mother. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). CRIER: OK, Arthel. What about the notion, Arthel, that you have got a guy who wanted his children home-schooled. If he is going to help her out, maybe he doesn't have to stay home, but he sure doesn't leave her locked in that house with five kids, basically alienates her family as they testified to, discouraged neighbors from coming over to help her and create the kind of environment where a woman who is legally insane despite the jury's verdict had the opportunity to injure those children.

NEVILLE: You know what? That is a great breaking point because I want to get the audience reaction to that when we come back as well as this thought, that Russell Yates could be in trouble for talking too much. What is up with that? We're going to talk about that after the break. Don't go anywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. We are talking about whether Rusty Yates could face charges for having too much to say at the wrong time. But before we get to that, I want to talk to Waymon (ph) over here, because I think you had some comments. Would you stand up for me please? You had some reaction to Catherine Crier's comment before we went to break.

WAYMON: I just wanted to ask the question we are going to start opening up a door of worms now, that we are going to start charging other people for the action of other folks? That's all I wanted to say about that. We are going to have a big problem with that. And I do not think that's right.

CRIER: But we already have those laws. We've got all kinds of laws, whether it's conspiracy laws or accessory laws, for a very long time on our books and they are not misapplied. We are not opening the door to go after people when the law is not appropriate.

NEVILLE: And, Brooks, your thoughts are?

BROOKS: Yes. I am also a father of five children and it does take both to take care of the kids, but also know that there is different kinds of responsibility. There is a responsibility I have to my family and to my children, but I am not responsible for them and for their actions. For instance, if one of my children happens to knock a cup off the cabinet, I am not held responsible for that because I didn't do that. I am responsible to train them so that they can make right decisions. But ultimately, each individual has their own decisions to make.

NEVILLE: Well, that is lovely, but the law is not going to support you because if that cup happened to have acid in it, and your child threw in the face of another kid, you would be responsible.

BROOKS: I think that is wrong.

CRIER: Well, I will take you up on that one. NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Jeffery, we have not heard from you in a moment. What are your thoughts at this moment?

LEVING: My main concern here is that if the gender roles were reversed in this case, and the father had taken the lives of his children, we wouldn't even be here on a talk show talking about the mother, whether she was right or wrong or a criminal or not a criminal.

NEVILLE: Why do you say that, Jeffery?

LEVING: Because gender bias exists in our legal system and in our society. And because of that, children and families are often put at risk. And it is very frightening and it is very, very scary.

CRIER: But then, why are we seeing cases where the mother, in fact, stood by while the boyfriend or husband abused the child or even murdered the child, and we have seen that woman also prosecuted and placed in prison.

LEVING: Right. But that's different. We're dealing with a...

CRIER: That's not different. Those cases happen all of the time.

LEVING: We are dealing with a non-biological father. No, that's different because we are dealing with a non-biological father...

CRIER: Husband or boyfriend.

NEVILLE: OK, guys, you know what? I'll tell you what.

LEVING: OK. Well, it...

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Jeffery, complete your thought and then I'm going to get somebody else to jump in here. Go ahead.

LEVING: Very quickly, when we are looking at non-biological fathers, which we are doing now, children, especially little girls that are fatherless, are 900 percent more likely to become abused, injured and raped when -- by non-biological fathers because the biological dad is not there. So this is a whole different area.

NEVILLE: That is a different area. That is a different area, Jeffery. I am not quite sure where are you going with that, but I am going to go ahead and let Mickey (ph), who is standing by on the phone right now. Mickey, I would like to hear your comment. Nicky (ph), go ahead please?

NICKY: Yes. What I was saying is that there is no way this man should be held responsible for what his wife did. If the case was that he is responsible, then every schizoid (ph) that commited a crime, their parents, their brothers, their sisters or their mother or father is responsible.

CRIER: Why does everybody want to go down the slippery slope with this? Each fact situation is different. If you have got a mother who never visits a schizoid daughter, the mother is not going to be responsible. If she dropped in once in a while and had not seen her, weeks before this event occurred, probably not responsible. We are talking about a man who lived, breathed and slept with this woman day in and day out. That is a unique circumstance.

NEVILLE: Andy, you're on the line right now. Andy, go ahead. I would like to hear your thoughts right now.

ANDY: Yes, hi. I am talking from Canada, and I'm talking as an ex-cop, an ex-con and an independent biker. And there are two sins, sins of commission, which Andrea was unjustly convicted of. I feel for her. And there are sins of omission...

CRIER: Yes, sir.

ANDY: ... which is what Rusty deserves. With that little smug face of his, let him do time. Thank you.

NEVILLE: Thank you, sir. And, Lorraine (ph), your thoughts are?

LEVING: And exactly what is going on here is we are looking at the emotions, the perception of the general public of Russell Yates. And a lot of people do not like him, but that does not make him a criminal. And two days before the murder, Andrea Yates saw a psychiatrist who took her off the strong anti-psychotic drugs she was on and sent her home. And the same psychiatrist testified during the trial that there was no evidence that she was psychotic.

Now, if we want to look at somebody to criminally charge, why aren't -- why isn't the district attorney's office investigating that doctor who took her off the medication she was on, sent her home instead of involuntarily committing her and then decided she wasn't psychotic.

CRIER: Well, Jeffery, you know darn well that is going to end up in a civil court.

NEVILLE: OK, guys. Lorraine (ph), you are hearing the comments. What are your thoughts?

LORRAINE: I am surprised that no one is feeling sorry for that woman who had five young children. He could have maybe stopped back at two children since she was having so much trouble. She was depressed, not only psychotic.

NEVILLE: So are you implying that perhaps Russell Yates should have stepped in and maybe stepped out and not contributed to the growth the family?

LORRAINE: Yes, I do. I think that would have been a help. If he was home all of the time and helped her more, and if he was -- I've lost my train of thought.

NEVILLE: But it's OK because that, you know, that is part of the argument that people were saying though, that he had to work, he had to provide for the family, so that is why he was not there. That's the other side of that argument.

LORRAINE: He wanted her to do home-schooling. He wanted her to do everything. And in a normal family where there's no problems, five young children are difficult.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Well, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us today here on TALKBACK LIVE.

And we are going to -- that's right -- we're going to talk more with you at home as well. So get on the calls, get on the phone, get the e-mails going. You know how much I love e-mails. So we will talk to you in a moment. More on this subject after this break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back. We are talking about Russell Yates and the possibility of criminal charges being brought against him. I want to bring Joe Roach into this conversation now, a Houston attorney. Joe, Russell is also under investigation for alleged gag order violations. Tell us about that.

JOE ROACH, FORMER HOUSTON ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, he made a "60 Minutes" interview that was in violation of the gag order that Judge Belinda Hill did. But you know, I do not think much is going to come of that. I think that the old saying "let sleeping dogs lie", I would be very surprised if that was pursued.

I think he is more in danger of being charged with child endangerment or something with the murders of the children as opposed to a gag order, because you have to remember the D.A. here is also under investigation for a violation of the gag order. And I think a lot of people in Houston and in the courtrooms, would just kind of like that gag order thing to go away.

NEVILLE: So, do you think it is fair, at this point, to perform a culpability litmus test on Russell Yates?

ROACH: Well, I think if you sat in the courtroom and heard the evidence, which I did, because I covered for -- I think I did some work for your station as well as -- CNN as well as ABC.

NEVILLE: Yes, because, Joe, you are all over the place.

ROACH: Well, I don't know about that. But there is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that he knew that she was -- could be dangerous with the children, not to leave the children alone and place them in imminent peril. And that is for a jury to decide and for a grand jury to decide. And we will see if the D.A. presses charges. We will see.

NEVILLE: We'll see. And, Jo, we have another Joe on the line right now.

ROACH: Oh! Hi, Jo. NEVILLE: Let's share your thoughts with us, Jo.

JOAN: Yes. I believe -- I agree with Catherine Crier 100 percent. And also, I believe that Russell added to her stress and mental incapacities by having the children home-schooled by her, refusing any help. And I do believe he always, to a certain degree -- he has a certain degree of responsibility to their death, for their death.

ROACH: If I could comment on that.

NEVILLE: Please do.

ROACH: In Houston, I believe the D.A. has been quoted as saying he's received a gazillion e-mails...

NEVILLE: A gazillion, that's the word he used.

ROACH: ... from local Houstonians in outrage that Russell has not been prosecuted. And, as a former D.A., I worked in that office for six years, you do not receive a gazillion e-mails on very many cases. You may receive them on the dog mauling case or high-profile cases. But that certainly plays into that. The people of Houston are mad and want to see justice done. And I hear them on the streets. You hear that in the cafes, in restaurants, in bars, in the courthouse. You hear it everywhere.

JOAN: Yes. He should be held responsible to some degree because he certainly did add to her mental problems. She needed help, he knew it and he refused it.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Joan. And sorry for calling you Joe earlier.

CRIER: Arthel, there was...

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Catherine.

CRIER: Joan just raised a great example, the dog-mauling trial. Here you have got a man, Mr. Noel, who was not even home. The dog had never seriously bitten anyone, although nipped and there have been some reports. Nobody had gone to the cops, and yet this man, who was not home, was found to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, or I guess it was reckless homicide, in that case. So we are saying you can know this about a dog, but if you spend all of that time with your wife to the point that you pulled knives out of her hand, that does not count?

LEVING: These are two different cases, completely different, two different states, two different set of laws. California and Texas have a different criminal codes. I do not think you can make a comparison.

But the problem Rusty Yates could have is that right now, it may become politically correct to criminally charge him, even though I believe he should not be charged, even though I believe he didn't commit a crime. If it becomes politically correct, then that could be a problem and he could ends up being charged.

NEVILLE: Well, did you hear what said, Dan? Do you hear this? What do you think about that?

DAN: Um, well, I actually did not hear what said.

NEVILLE: He said that -- he thinks that if Russell Yates were to be charged, that it be doing -- it would proceed because it would be politically correct because Houstonians are crying out for this?

DAN: OK. Well, I think that to charge him with negligence, you have to show that there were previous instances of abuse between Andrea and her kids. And as far as we know, there were no previous instances of abuse. So how can you charge him with negligence if he does not have any like...

LEVING: I agree. He should not be charged with negligence. I believe he did not commit a crime. But the problem is that the D.A.'s office is getting inundated with angry e-mails and a lot of people want him prosecuted. So politically, it may be become correct to charge Russell Yates.

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: Arthel, let me throw something out. Let's say she did not stab the children. Let's say in her catatonic state, the baby fell in the bathtub and drowned. And he knew that she was in that state day after day after day. Leaving that child alone with her would be reckless. Same thing.

ROACH: Well, I agree with Catherine. And I think I have a certain vantage point because I heard the testimony. I think it's hard to predict....

LEVING: Yes, but these analogies don't make any sense because they are not correct analogies.

(CROSSTALK)

ROACH: Yes, but listen. Just listen for a second. Listen for a second. There was testimony...

NEVILLE: OK, well, you know what? We are losing everybody, so that means we need to move on, switch subjects. Joe Roach, Jeffrey Leving, and Catherine Crier, I want to thank all of my guests for joining us today.

And up next: What do corporations that profited from slavery owe African-Americans? Several businesses face lawsuits this week. Can descendants of slaves claim compensation for past abuses?

We will talk about that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. What does the U.S. owe African-Americans for slavery? We are talking about reparations, not just apologies, but real cash. Should the descendants of slaves be paid for the abuse of their ancestors? As many as 100 corporations could face lawsuits. The first suit was filed today.

CNN financial correspondent Peter Viles is going to fill us in.

And, Peter, spell out the details, if you will, of the lawsuits.

PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sure.

Well, it is a potentially historic lawsuit, Arthel, but right now, it's also a very thin lawsuit. It argues, basically, that American corporations profited from slavery 140 years ago -- it names three corporations -- and that the ancestors or successors of those companies that are still in business now should pay back those profits to the ancestors of the slaves.

Now, beyond that, the suit is very sketchy. It does not say how much money was made off of slavery, which companies made it, or how much money should be paid back to the estimated 35 million ancestors slaves here in the United States right now. It says to the court: Why don't you tell these companies to do the research, figure out how much they made off of these businesses hundreds of years ago? Then, when we find out how much money was made, then we talk about what to do about it.

NEVILLE: But if you leave it up to the companies, then maybe they will fudge the numbers.

VILES: Well, they have asked for a special independent historic commission to oversee the research. Presumably, that would stand in the way of the companies fudging the numbers. But one thing that would definitely be a problem here is, do you have records from loans you made 200 years ago, when the bank was not this bank or the bank before it or the bank before it, but four generations of legal ownership ago?

I think it may be hard to some of the research and find out exactly what the value of the slave labor and the slave trade was in this country.

NEVILLE: How have the companies reacted thus far?

VILES: Three companies named in the lawsuit -- the suit promises to name as many as 100 more. Two of those three have responded. In the case of the Hartford insurance company Aetna, the suit claims that Aetna profited from slavery by writing life insurance policies on slaves, with their owners as beneficiaries. If a slave died, the owner would get the money.

In response, Aetna says -- quote -- "We do not believe a court would permit lawsuits over events which, however regrettable, occurred hundreds of years ago. These issues in no way reflect Aetna today. A second defendant, CSX -- that's a railroad company in Richmond, Virginia -- is accused of profiting from railroads that were built in part by slave labor. Now, in response, CSX says the suit is -- quote -- "wholly without merit and should be dismissed. The claimant named CSX because slave labor was used to construct portions of some U.S. rail lines under the political and legal system in place more than a century before CSX was even formed in 1980."

The third defendant is Fleet bank up in Boston. The allegation there is that Fleet's predecessor, Providence Bank, in Providence, Rhode Island, made loans to a man who owned slaves and therefore profited from the slave trade -- no comment yet from FleetBoston. They say they haven't seen this lawsuit -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Peter Viles, thank you very much for bringing us up to speed.

Now, with me here in Atlanta is Akinyele Umoja. He is an associate professor of African-American studies at Georgia State University; also with us Joe Hicks. He's executive director of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

Thank you to both of you gentlemen for joining me this afternoon.

I would like to ask this question. Will these lawsuits fly?

Mr. Hicks, with you first.

JOE HICKS, CENTER FOR STUDY OF POPULAR CULTURE: Well, more than likely, the first court this goes into, the court will throw it out.

As we heard in the news report, this is a very thin lawsuit. But beyond the legalities of whether this is a proper lawsuit or not are the larger questions I am sure we will get into here about the propriety of bringing claims against people who are dead as well as those who were oppressed by slavery. What is the point in that?

And the claim, of course, that today's black Americans are still feeling the effects of slavery, that intellectually is a very difficult case to make. And I have yet to hear, despite books and other speeches made, that make that case in an authoritative way.

NEVILLE: So, I am understanding that you're saying that they should not even proceed at all.

HICKS: That is my feeling totally.

NEVILLE: OK, Professor, I would like to hear your thoughts.

AKINYELE UMOJA, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, my thoughts are this.

When you talk about crimes against humanity, there are no statute of limitations. When you talk about Nazi Germany, no one says that Jewish people in the state of Israel should not be compensated by the state of Germany. The thing we saw earlier talked about it was legal at that particular time. Well, so was the Holocaust legal.

Joe is right on one thing. These are some very serious issues. And it takes a broad discussion in terms of the United States at this particular time to come to grips with these issues that we've been in denial for, for over 100 years. We've been in denial about slavery and we've been in denial about the legacy of slavery today and the effects it has on black people today.

NEVILLE: Why do you think it is more palatable to talk about victims of the Holocaust than it to talk about reparations for slaves?

UMOJA: Well, it is less palatable inside the United States because the United States, as I said, is in a state of denial about the oppression of black people today and the legacy of slavery.

So, unfortunately, rather than apologize -- because apology is important. That is where you start. In acknowledging responsibility, denial is taken forth. And then black people are blamed for the situation that black people find themselves in today. So, rather than having an honest and open discussion about this, we deny, we deny, we deny, and make it seem that it did not happen. And, in fact, the victims are blamed for the atrocities that occurred.

And the legacy of those atrocities still exist today, because slavery sets a whole foundation for race relations in terms of black people inside this country and sets the foundation for what we call institutionalized racism exists today that still exists. That is why we still have red-lining. That's why we still have -- what do they call it -- racial profiling.

That's why we have such a disparity in the incomes of black people and white people inside this country, the disparity in the assets between black people and white people in this country, and the large numbers of black people that are incarcerated inside the United States today. You can't deny that.

NEVILLE: Joe Hicks, what are your thoughts about institutionalized racism?

HICKS: Well, it is like talking about Santa Claus. What is institutionalized racism? The fact that people say, "Well, racism is as bad as it has ever been." And then they say: "But it's hidden. You can't see it. They are just slicker at it." Sol, it is like a shifting game here.

But let me go back to what was just said about denial about slaves and denial of the Holocaust. Holocaust victims were paid by Germany and other firms. These were the direct descendants of those people that died in gas chambers. There are no people alive today who are black Americans who are from that generation. They are all dead.

NEVILLE: But they are talking about the repercussions of that.

(CROSSTALK)

HICKS: Hold on. NEVILLE: And how can you say they not direct descendants on top of that? So, two things there.

HICKS: You would not deny, Arthel -- or certainly your guest there -- that the people who suffered directly from slavery are now all dead. It is an insult to claim that people like myself and your guests are people that are suffering directly from the effects of slavery to say -- the report was right.

Who collects? What about the case of intermarriages? What degree of black genealogy does one need to collect on reparations? There are all kinds of questions. This in fact is an attempt to perpetuate the victimization of black Americans. It is an insult. We are not a victimized people.

NEVILLE: Certainly -- I am definitely not here to perpetuate any victimization. And I am certainly not here to use anything as a crutch.

But I ask you this, Mr. Hicks. Your great grandfather, was he the owner of a company that he handed down to you?

HICKS: No, but there are a lot of white Americans who have had grandfathers who weren't the owners of companies either.

NEVILLE: But they also had the opportunity to have those companies that we did not. That is all I'm trying to make that point.

HICKS: There were capitalists and people with money that had an opportunity. My point is that all white Americans did not have that opportunity. Otherwise, all white Americans today would be very wealthy people. It is a course that you are pursuing here that, intellectually, has no end game, because you can't claim that all white Americans are in the same position as Rockefellers. They simply are not.

NEVILLE: I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that, sir. I am just simply talking about the playing field. That's all.

HICKS: I know you're not. OK.

UMOJA: But, Joe, isn't there is such a thing as white-skin privilege?

HICKS: No, there is not.

UMOJA: Well, maybe that's where we disagree. And I am sorry that you're under such an illusion, sir.

NEVILLE: This is definitely a heated debate. And Ron here is dying to tell me something. And I want to hear his thoughts. But I have got to take a break.

And I'll get to you when I come back, OK? I promise you.

And we'll be back in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back.

We are talking about whether African-Americans today should receive compensation for slavery.

And, Ron, I promised I would let you speak. Go ahead.

RON: Two comments. But, you know, it is interesting today that we are paying back the Indians today by visiting their casinos and giving all our money back to them. But the points I wanted to make...

NEVILLE: And what is your point on that one, though, before you move on?

RON: That we are paying back the Indians, in their manner.

But the point, to me, is, I think it is sort of a gimme-gimme- gimme syndrome. It's absolutely ludicrous that I could be held legally responsible for something my ancestors 200 years ago did, when my ancestors came from Stockholm, not Africa, we would be held responsible monetarily.

NEVILLE: Well, you wouldn't, because we are not talking about government, because that is a whole another part of the poll that...

RON: If I'm a taxpayer or a stockholder, I would be held.

NEVILLE: Well, as a stockholder. But we were not talking about -- another part of the poll asked whether or not the government should pay. And most people disagreed with that, because, then, in that regard, you are right. As a taxpayer, you would be paying.

RON: There is no government with an endless bag of money. The government is the people. And I am part of the government.

NEVILLE: And so am I.

RON: Not the people -- not the government. You and I would be paying, somebody that was not responsible.

NEVILLE: I understand. And that's an excellent point.

But right now, we've got some breaking news.

(INTERRUPTED BY BREAKING NEWS)

NEVILLE: And welcome back. We are talking about reparations for descendants of slaves.

And Ben had some thoughts during the news break.

And I would like you to share those thoughts with everybody else now.

BEN: Basically, what I was thinking about was, during World War II, our government gave reparations for Japanese descendants that...

NEVILLE: The Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II.

BEN: Correct. And we gave them money towards it. And, in the United States, slavery runs really deep, especially in the South. And I do not understand why we don't do something. If they have actual facts within these corporations that they did gain from the slave labor, then they should have to pay something.

NEVILLE: Joe Hicks, if it's good enough for the Japanese- Americans, why isn't it good enough for African-Americans?

HICKS: Well, again, we need to get our historical facts right.

The Japanese were, again, the descendants of those, the people who were in the camps. They were paid the money. People forward did not receive the money. That is the way that went down.

UMOJA: But there was support for institutional development: scholarships for Japanese people, just as reparations advocates advocate scholarships for African-Americans, talk about support for health care for African-Americans. So, Joe, you can't deny these things.

HICKS: Well, I can deny them.

UMOJA: You can join that camp if your want with Horowitz and the rest of those hate-mongers.

HICKS: If we want to go back and look at the original architects of civil rights, who were people like Dr. King and Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker and all of the old great architects of the civil rights movements, they thought African-Americans, black people in this country, deserved two things: one, freedom from discrimination. The civil rights movement pretty much did that. Secondly, they demanded that people get equality of opportunity.

(CROSSTALK)

HICKS: And that is what we deserve, nothing more, nothing less.

UMOJA: And then Martin Luther King started talking about economic rights, didn't he, Joe? That is why he organized the Poor People's March.

NEVILLE: You know what, obviously a very, very complex conversation we are having here. Unfortunately, I'm out of time.

Akinyele Umoja, thank you very much. Joe Hicks, thanks for your opinions as well. Glad you both could join me here today.

And thanks to all of you at home who are watching. I am Arthel Neville. And I hope to see you back here again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern. You know how it works.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com