Evanston’s reparations program is just a start
The conversation about reparations just got a lot more interesting — and in some ways more complicated.
Last week Evanston, a Chicago suburb, approved the first phase of its reparations program, which is the first government reparations program for African Americans in the U.S.
The program — which will provide $10 million for reparations initiatives — is intended to acknowledge and make amends for the wrongs and continued harm of slavery, segregation and other discriminatory practices, including those involving housing.
The reparations initiatives will be funded through revenue the city generates from its annual cannabis taxes over the next 10 years. Although we don’t know every reparations initiative Evanston plans to launch, the city has clearly laid out its first program, which focuses on housing.
Specifically, Evanston is making $400,000 available in $25,000 home ownership and improvement grants, and it is providing mortgage assistance to Black residents who can demonstrate they are descendants of people who suffered discrimination and who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969.
Evanston’s reparations program is trailblazing. It comes at a time when other governments — including California’s — are exploring reparations options and as Congress is debating a bill to create a national commission to study reparations. That bill, H.R. 40, has a fair chance of passing in the House but likely will face significant opposition in the Senate.
The fact that Evanston, a city where only 16 percent of residents are Black, backed pursuing reparations is impressive, given that national polling has found clear racial divides on the topic.
For example a nationwide AP-NORC poll in 2019 found that, despite 60 percent of Americans overall believing the history of slavery in this country continues to affect Black people, only 15 percent of White Americans support paying cash reparations and just 35 percent of White Americans support the U.S. government even issuing a formal apology for slavery — an action that would be a largely symbolical gesture.
In contrast, 74 percent of Black Americans and 44 percent of Hispanics support reparations, and about 77 percent of Black Americans and 64 percent of Hispanics support a government apology.
That’s why I’m encouraged to see Evanston take this step, and I understand why longtime advocates for reparations generally laud Evanston’s launch.
However, Evanston’s rollout isn’t without its shortcomings, and that’s something important for us folks in California to keep in mind as our new statewide task force explores reparations options.
California’s nine-member committee, which includes San Diego Councilwoman Monica Montgomery Steppe, is tasked with studying the state’s role in slavery and developing proposals for reparations. They are expected to meet before June 1, 2021.
Specifically some advo
cates for reparations worry Evanston’s approach may unintentionally detract from efforts to deliver fuller, federal reparations.
A. Kirsten Mullen and William A. Darity Jr. — authors of the book “From Here to Equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the Twenty-First Century” — wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post Sunday that what Evanston launched is not reparations but a “housing voucher program.” They contend it does more harm than good to characterize it as reparations because Evanston’s is a local, piecemeal effort, rather than a robust federal program where the U.S. admits wrongdoing.
“True reparations only can come from a full-scale program of acknowledgment, redress and closure for a grievous injustice,” they wrote.
Mullen and Darity also argued that by focusing on housing, Evanston’s program doesn’t make a significant dent in the Black-White wealth gap.
The wealth gap between Black and White Americans has historically been and remains massive. A 2016 Brookings Institute report showed net worth of a typical White family is 10 times greater than that of a Black family — $171,000 to $17,150.
Mullen and Darity’s concerns are fair. While it’s exciting to see some local governments get passionate about this issue, ultimately the onus still falls on the federal government to launch a reparations program
and pay for it.
The federal government has vastly greater resources to support a more impactful program than local governments would.
I’d also argue the federal government has a greater responsibility to pursue reparations than many municipalities, because the federal government was arguably the most responsible for upholding the slave trade, continuing to do so well after other global powers like Britain and France outlawed the abhorrent practice.
Hopefully, municipalities stepping in in the absence of the federal government doesn’t give people a false sense that adequate
reparations are being pursued.
It’s also fair to question whether housing should be the priority for reparations programs. While I think it could be a feature, I think the focus should be on things that have longer lasting economic impact.
Mullen and Darity argue for cash payments directly to Black Americans, similar to those the U.S. paid to Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II. I don’t think that’s politically attainable. That AP-NORC poll found only 29 percent of Americans support direct cash payments.
I do think things like business grants, scholarships
and tax breaks could gain traction with enough of the public, though, while also delivering lasting impact.
I think it’s important to recognize that the conversation has moved forward; we’re increasingly debating what reparations should look like instead of whether they should happen at all.
It’s exciting that there will be modern, real-world examples to draw from for reparation programs, even if they are imperfect like Evanston’s, and it’s encouraging that more Americans are discussing reparations, even if it took us more than a century to get here.