This is the executive summary of the California Reparations Report. Even in its abbreviated form, it’s a long read. Today I want to focus on only one of the Report’s recommendations: namely that “the State of California will offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of California for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.”
This apology would be aside from and in addition to all other recommendations, including direct cash payments. The apology is said to be based on a United Nations “Basic Principle” known as “satisfaction,” which “can include, among other things, a public apology that constitutes an acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility, judicial and administrative sanctions against perpetrators, and commemorations and tributes to the victims.”
“An effective apology,” the Report states, “should both acknowledge and express regret for what was done to victims and their relatives and take responsibility.” It should “also be accompanied by a request for forgiveness.” Among other requirements, a “good” apology must consist of the following six conditions:
1) it must be made publicly
(2) it must be made at the place where the events occurred
(3) it must acknowledge responsibility for the violations that have been committed
(4) it must be made in the presence and with the participation of a considerable number of survivors and next of kin
(5) it must involve the highest state authority and senior state officials
(6) it must be broadcast and disseminated fully throughout the state
In addition to the State of California apologizing, “The Task Force recommends that the Legislature formally apologize on its own behalf.” Importantly, “the apology should also acknowledge California’s responsibility to repair the harms and guarantee non-repetition.” This, of course, leads to the subjects of compensation, which I’ll take up at a later time when I analyze the part of the Report entitled “Methodologies for Calculating Compensation and Forms of Compensation and Restitution.”
For now, I simply observe that most of the Report’s recommendations face a heavy lift, politically. I am not privy to Gov. Newsom’s inner thoughts, but my hunch is that he won’t be comfortable with the Report in its entirety and is liable to reject large parts of it. Certainly, cash reparations is not popular among Californians at large: a poll of registered voters in the state found that only 23 percent support cash reparations (although Black voters support cash payments by a substantial majority). Many other polls have reached the same conclusion. It’s not clear, yet, how Californians feel about the non-cash parts of reparations. The Legislature has first to come up with a specific plan, and subsequent polling will give us more information. I’d love to see a poll concerning the “apology” recommendation, but right now I suspect most voters would not favor it.
One thing you can say for the Reparations Task Force: it’s certainly stimulated discussion, and there will be a great deal more going forward. And let’s not forget that reparations by the State of California is only one part of the Reparations movement, which is also happening at the Federal, County and City levels.
Steve Heimoff