KQED reported on 14 reparations bills currently working their way through the California Legislature. Here’s my take on each. But first:
I’m not big on reparations. But I am willing to hear out specific proposals. Maybe some of them make sense. One thing’s for sure: direct monetary payments are off the table—not because I say so, but because Californians hate the idea. There may be a City Council somewhere that’s willing to pass monetary reparations, but I suspect those council members will have a tough time getting re-elected—if they’re not recalled first.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7: This would effectively repeal 1996’s Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action in public employment, public contracting and public education. ACA7 instead would allow the state to fund race-based programs designed to improve the health, education or economic well-being of “specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin or marginalized genders or sexual orientations.”
My take: No. Not only have the voters of California repeatedly said loud and clear they’re against affirmative action, but the U.S. Supreme Court has disallowed it. Taxpayer money can never be used to benefit a specific group based on skin color.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8: This would outlaw “involuntary servitude” in prisons, which currently is legal in California. ACA8 would specifically require prisons to pay inmates an adequate amount for the work they do inside prison walls, although the bill doesn’t state how much. The bill is specifically targeted at Black inmates, who make up 28% of the prison population, even though they’re only 5% of the overall State population.
My take: We need more details. It does seem wrong to pay a prison laundry worker 8 cents an hour.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 135: Would begin with an “acknowledgment and an honest reckoning of the harms perpetrated by California’s government” by “chattel slavery and subsequent discriminatory policies against Black Californians.”
My take: No. The actual intention of ACR135 is to lay the groundwork for future bills possibly supporting cash payments to Black people. This camel’s nose under the tent flap should be rejected.
Assembly Bill 280: Would limit the use of solitary confinement in prisons. Gov. Newsom vetoed a similar bill two years ago, but suggested he would reconsider, if a new bill was more specific. For example, certain prisoners clearly need to be restrained in solitary confinement because they’re too dangerous to be around prison staff and other prisoners.
My take: I’ll go along with whatever Gov. Newsom does.
Assembly Bill 1815: This would outlaw workplace and other discriminations based on hair texture or hairstyles like braids, locks and twists. The bill allegedly is based on research suggesting that “Black women with coily or textured hair are twice as likely to experience microaggressions at work compared to those with straight hair.”
My take: If Black women really are being discriminated against due to their hair style, the law ought to address that. But I do wonder if AB1815 would allow for situations where, let’s say, a restaurant wanted to eject an unruly patron, or a business wanted to fire an incompetent employee, and the offended person used AB1815 to retaliate. If AB1815 is to be the law, then the onus of a lawsuit must be on the offended party to prove that they were discriminated against, rather than the other way around.
Assembly Bill 1929: If I understand this correctly, AB1929 would require the State to report on students by race, when it comes to being accepted into technical education programs.
My take: Again, this seems like a way around outright bans on affirmative action. If AB1929’s sponsors can cite data proving that Black students are less likely to be admitted to these training programs, they can argue that the students are being discriminated against, when there could well be other factors involved. I’m against.
Assembly Bill 1975: Would require Medi-Cal “to cover culturally relevant and medically supportive foods or nutrition interventions when deemed necessary by a healthcare provider.” The Bill’s author is our own Mia Bonta.
My take: Sounds vague and ominously open-ended. If every Medi-Cal recipient demanded “culturally relevant nutrition,” the Medi-Cal system would be a hopeless quagmire. Do you really think it’s Medi-Cal’s responsibility to make sure that every Orthodox Jew, vegan, pescatarian, Ethiopian, Tibetan, keto diet, organic-preferring, Native-American and Paleo eater has the right to government-offered food that satisfies their religious or personal preferences? This is crazy. No.
Assembly Bill 1986: A curious bill that would overturn a current California practice of banning certain books in California prisons, based on the premise (according to the bill’s authors) that “states and local governments have engaged in racist censorship of books written by African American authors, primarily in public schools and in prisons.”
My take: Again, prison officials may have perfectly good reasons for removing access to certain books. The language of AB1986 does not specify any particular books that have been banned. Since I believe prison officials have the right and responsibility to keep certain books away from prisoners, I’m against AB1986.
Assembly Bill 2064: This bill in essence would do across California what Oakland is trying to do with the Department of Violence Prevention. AB2064 would fund “programs that promote socialization, emotional regulation techniques and social and cultural competence in early-school-age children.”
My take: No. For two reasons. First, the State is virtually bankrupt, with a budget deficit of tens of billions of dollars, and we can’t keep pouring tax dollars into dubious, open-ended schemes. Secondly, judging from Oakland’s Dept. of Violence Prevention, AB2064 would be a bureaucratic rat hole, a source of grift, waste and abuse. It’s a horrible idea.
Assembly Bill 2862: Simply put, Black applicants for jobs regulated by State boards—barbers, real estate agents, etc.—would get priority over everyone else.
My take: No, no, no. Absolutely unconstitutional, and morally corrupt.
Assembly Bill 3089: Once again, would require a “formal apology” from state officials and the heads of other institutions “who promoted, facilitated, enforced and permitted the institution of chattel slavery…”.
My take: The problem with these “apology” bills is that they can be used by civil rights lawyers in court to demand cash payments. We need to realize that the most aggressive supporters of reparations are fixated on the idea of cash payments. They cannot accept the fact that most voters are absolutely against them. One way or another, reparations supporters are determined pry billions away from taxpayers and redistribute it to Black people. AB3089 is wrong and dangerous. If we had assurances that AB3089 would never be used in this egregious way, then sure, by all means have Governors and CEOs apologize for slavery. But without such assurances, these sorts of apologies have to be very closely scrutinized for unintended consequences by the Attorney-General.
Assembly Bill 3131: Create two grant programs funding “career technical education” for people from historically redlined communities.
My take: Affirmative action under a different name. How come reparations supporters can’t understand that benefiting certain groups based on skin color is unconstitutional? Why do they keep trying to fool us? “Redlining” is just a code word for Black people. I’ll say it again: It’s unconstitutional, it’s wrong, it’s divisive. And it’s a slippery slope: once government grants one special privilege to a racial group, there will be no end to that group’s demands. No on AB3131.
Senate Bill 1050: Eminent domain has always been controversial. But sometimes the needs of the larger society outweigh those of individuals. The bill’s author claims that Black citizens have suffered more than any other group due to eminent domain, and therefore “a new government agency” is needed “to manage reparations programs for eligible Black Californians.”
My take: No. Just another way for cash payments.
Senate Bill 1089: The bill makes a good point: Black neighborhoods are rapidly becoming food deserts due to the constant closure of grocery stores. This is indeed a real hardship. SB1089 would require stores planning on closing to give advance notice to employees and county officials, apparently on the assumption that this would allow local shoppers to organize to oppose the closures.
My take: It’s not clear if local protests can keep a grocery store owner from shutting down a store. But if it can, more power to the protesters. SB1089 seems okay to me, so I support it.
Conclusion: All of these bills will be hotly debated, and their current language will change as amendments are added. Nor is it at all clear which of them, if any, the Governor will sign. But it’s clear to me that the most radical supporters of cash payments will not go quietly into that good night. They’ll continue to do anything and everything they can to thwart the will of the voters.
Steve Heimoff