More than two years after the California Reparations Task Force released its first set of policy recommendations for repairing generational harms of slavery and post-slavery institutional racism, the movement is stalling.
Many expect the ideology-fueled fervor of legislating cash and non-cash restitutions for Black Americans in California, which entered the Union as a free state in 1850, would eventually die down as the wave of racial reckoning exhausts media cycles and public support.
But never underestimate the unflinching zeal of policymakers who insist on racial “solutions” to social problems. Earlier this month, Assemblyman Isaac Bryan introduced Assembly Bill No. 7 (AB 7), proposing the following paragraph to be added to the education code:
“[T]he California State University, the University of California, independent institutions of higher education, and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery, as defined, to the extent it does not conflict with federal law.”
Asm. Bryan, incoming vice chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, argues that admission priority for descendants from slavery is a “moral responsibility” for addressing racial inequality and systemic injustices. Bryan also says his measure is in part a response to Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
AB 7 has received endorsements from prominent Democratic legislators, including Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, wife of the State Attorney General Rob Bonta and State Senator Akilah Weber, daughter of Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
Although the bill does not mention race explicitly, other than acknowledging the state bans racial preferences, it is abundantly clear that descendance from slavery is used as a proxy for race. In an interview with California Black Media on the day he introduced AB 7, Asm. Bryan pledged to champion issues for Black Californians in his new leadership role. He vows to fight for their “fair access to resources and opportunities in every aspect of life, whether it’s education, jobs, or health.”
This is a bold move in the context of many political setbacks facing reparations. As early as May 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom had dialed back his support, saying that he would not support any cash payments. In June, state senators shot down ACA 7, a constitutional amendment to legalize “research-based/-informed” exemptions to California’s constitutional ban on racial preferences. By September, even the Black Caucus, chief promoter of reparations within the state’s legislative bodies, became hesitant.
At the cost of inciting protests from the Reparations Task Force and activists, the group put off two priority reparations bills, Senate Bill 1403 and Senate Bill 1331, from being voted on at the Assembly Floor. The two bills, which would have and created a state fund for reparations and established a freedman affairs agency to confirm claims, were considered prerequisites for other reparations-themed proposals. Soon after, Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 1050, a reparations bill on “racially motivated eminent domain.”
Arguably, California’s shrinking political will constituted an embarrassing impetus discouraging support of some Black voters for the Democratic Party during the November election. Therefore, it makes sense politically for the new leader of the Black Caucus to reintroduce reparations in the new legislative session, to either demonstrate ambition or save face with the constituency of reparations advocates.
Sadly, Asm. Bryan and AB 7 co-authors are placating a small minority of activists, which may create a tunnel vision in disregard for a growing public, bipartisan consensus against government preferences. Lest us forget, in 2020, 57.23% of California voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 16, which would have repealed Prop. 209.
Prop. 209 has been a long-standing target for the Reparations Task Force, whose policy reports invariably suggested getting rid of equal treatment as a form of “reparative apologies.” In 2023, a YouGov poll found that Americans’ support for reparations decreased from 39% in 2019 to 31%.
Perhaps, it is more politically expedient to propound racial fixes, than to engage in the long, hard work to reduce persistent achievement gaps at the K-12 level. But racial preferences in college admissions in the name of reparations only exacerbate the gaps and help nurture the growing cultural apathy to excellence. For one, the University of California system has for years forgone the constitutional ban on race-based affirmative action, in favor of racially balancing its freshman classes, first by way of socioeconomic proxies and then through a test-blind admissions process.
There is no need for the California Legislature to lend the government’s visible hand in furthering preferential treatment.
Wenyuan Wu is executive director of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation.