The Slavery Reparations Series
There are many arguments both in favor of and against cities and states – or even the federal government -making slavery reparations to African American citizens who have been impacted by racial inequality, systematic discrimination and bias, stereotyping, and other unfair practices once utilized regularly in our country. Not that those practices have ended – but at least we can recognize that they do happen and today, many places in America have taken steps toward eliminating processes that allow for the unequal treatment of black persons.
Arguably the most convincing argument I have heard against making slavery reparations is that the reparations made by the people/taxpayers of today are for the acts of people or our ancestors in the past, people we never even knew. To best understand this argument, you must have some basic knowledge about the budget appropriations process in both our national and state governments. When income taxes, property taxes, or sales taxes, just whatever sort of tax we have going on at that moment for that location, are collected by the government, they go into what is called the general fund. The general fund was established to maintain day-to-day operations, to go to the general public’s wellbeing such as for entitlement programs like Medicaid/Medicare, SNAP, WIC, and TANF. It is meant to go toward public transportation and government contracts, federal employee labor reimbursements in the form of wages, etc. Anything that truly impacts the public in a noticeable manner.
The general fund constitutes one of the two types of spending we have in our budget. That type of spending is known as mandatory. Mandatory spending doesn’t go through the same vigorous, tedious appropriations process each fiscal year that the other type of spending, known as discretionary spending, does. Mandatory spending is already allocated each fiscal year where it can be reasonably disbursed among the major projects easily. Discretionary spending is any monies in the budget that are not allocated to mandatory spending, and which will go in front of legislature at some point or other for review and subsequent allocation to the projects deemed necessary and appropriate by the lawmaking body. Since the general fund largely makes up mandatory spending, it would not, therefore, be reviewed by the legislature and allocated as necessary. Rather, it would be up to the locale’s policymakers to choose where and how the money is going to be spent.
Photo Credit: ILKAY DEDE
If the general fund, which is comprised of nearly all tax revenues from constituents, is used to fund slavery reparations in any way, white Americans could, and likely would, have a right to a cause of action citing that they are entitled to receive the benefit of those dollars, their dollars, the same as African Americans are because they cannot be held liable for something done by someone else they don’t even know many years thereafter. They pay into the general fund with the expectation of those revenues being used to their advantage. In fact, utilizing the general fund to pay for slavery reparations could be found to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The clause reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You could interpret this to mean that making and enforcing a slavery reparations law that provides a benefit only to members of one racial or ethnic group would be denying them a privilege, denying them equal rights under that law, and depriving them of their property (technically, their tax dollars = their benefit) without due process. This would be true regardless of whether the reparations came from the city, state, or national level.
This doesn’t mean we should repudiate proposals in favor of slavery reparations. None of that is to say that slavery reparations bills cannot be legally passed and enforced, or even that they cannot be funded, just that it may not be a wise idea to fund those reparations out of the general fund if we wish to avoid giving any party or group an interest in claiming that the law violates some right or statute. Establishing private funds solely for the purpose of reparations, as Evanston and Oak Park are doing by utilizing their cannabis taxes, is the easiest way to safeguard the legislation from its originations and ensure that the reparations can be made in a complete and fulfilling way without doing the very thing we are seeking reparations for: discriminating against a party or violating anyone’s human rights.
In the case of California, the fourteen proposed bills going before their lawmakers this spring may or may not have been as carefully crafted as are the ones in Illinois. Since they haven’t all been released for viewing there’s simply no way to know. We also don’t yet know if those bills are proposing reparations be made from specifically established funds for that purpose or if they are proposing the reparations be funded with general spending appropriations, although it seems as if they don’t exactly have the funding part figured out. Democratic Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D-CA), who represents a district north of San Diego, is proposing asking voters to change California’s Constitution to allow the state to fund programs aimed at “increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.” This is a good indication that they need the general fund to pay for their proposed reparations. That plan could face a similar constitutional challenge like the one that ultimately dismantled affirmative action, again citing violations under the 14th Amendment.
As we keep a close watch on this developing story in California and Oak Park and continue to see cash payments being made in Evanston, I would implore you all to consider:
On what level of the government should reparations be made? How should they be funded? Is it wrong to pay them utilizing the general fund? Are they constitutional, with or without the general fund paying the bill? How can we ensure they are constitutional to prevent legal challenges? And, how can we ensure they will stand up if they are challenged in the Supreme Court?
Keep an eye out for the next installment in the Slavery Reparations Series! As always, thank you for reading and supporting our movement. We’d love to hear your thoughts so drop a reply below! And remember, every share or repost, every like, and every reply gets us out there in the algorithm and on the feeds of others who we can educate, building community knowledge, one day at a time.
Contributing Sources:
Banaji, M. & et al. (2021). Systemic Racism: Individuals and Interactions, Institutions and Society.
Brown, Debbie-Marie. (2022). Reparations Committee Argues About Legal Funding Streams. Reparations Committee argues about legal funding streams – Evanston RoundTable
Fitzpatrick, B. & Shaw, T. M. (2024). Common Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Interpretation: The Equal Protection Clause | Constitution Center
Luna, T. (2024). California’s Reparations Plan: Eligibility, Payments, and Other Details. California’s slavery reparations plan: Eligibility, payments and more – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Phillips, J. (2024). California Leads in Thought – Not Actions – When It Comes to Reparations. California leads in thought — not action — on reparations (sfchronicle.com)
About the Author
Tia is an investigative journalist here at BLACK. She holds degrees in Political Science and Applied Economics from SNHU and she is a first-year law student at Purdue Global Law School, pursuing her J.D. She also has a certification in Human Rights from Wassmuth Center for Human Rights in Boise Idaho and she recently interned for the Office of Budget and Entitlement Policy at Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Tia is a RESULTS 2024 Organizing and Advocacy Fellow and Outreach and Partnerships Coordinator. She lives with her husband and three children in Hurricane, West Virginia.
In her free time, she enjoys contemporary art, fashion, home décor, reading, and family. Tia is passionate about protecting American consumers and corporations and is a strong proponent for open markets, human rights, and equality for all. Her current focus is slavery reparations, entitlement program solvency, and budget appropriations process reform. While Tia is not black, she supports the fight for equality and stands with BLM. She believes that unearned privilege creates a duty to act against racial inequality and injustices.
Comments