Activism

State’s Reparations Task Force Takes on Education Issues, Outreach Challenges at Third Baptist Church Meeting in S.F.

Recently, the work the task force is doing has been garnering national attention. But members say they must implement a stronger communications and public relations strategy leading up to the release of its findings. By statute, the task force must issue a report to the Legislature by June 1, 2022. Their findings will be available to the public.

Published

3 years ago

April 19, 2022

Oakland Post

Third Baptist Church Senior Pastor Amos Brown is the vice-chair of the Reparations Task Force.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

The California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans held its ninth meeting last week on April 13 and April 14 at Third Baptist Church in San Francisco.

The task force’s vice chair Amos Brown is the pastor of Third Baptist Church, which is located at 1399 McAllister St.

On the first day of the April meeting, the history of discrimination at colleges and professional education institutions and the school-to-prison pipeline will be discussed.

On the second day, the task force will preview its first report. Both days, sessions begin at 9 a.m.

During the meeting, the task force also plans to discuss the challenges some members say the committee has been having with communications organizations it has hired to develop public information campaigns and handle public relations.

The firms — the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA); Young Communications Group, a Los Angeles-based PR firm; and A/B Partners, a national social impact firm — are contracted to work with the task force through the California Department of Justice.

Task force chair Kamilah Moore expressed “concerns” with the communications firms at the task force’s March 29 meeting, questioning their ability to successfully perform the work the nine-member panel has assigned to them.

“We have given these (communications firms) upward of $1 million to do a job and they are not doing it by virtue of what has been stated in the contract,” Moore said of the issue from her perspective. “This is a serious concern. This has to be addressed sooner rather than later.

“We have to have a comprehensive conversation about this at our next meeting. We may have to open up the process again (to hear other communications firms) about what they can do and what deliverables they can bring to this process,” Moore said.

One of the firms “missed at least two deliverables” in January and February, and the other two groups gave out a “wrong email” when they were asked for an address to a website about task force inquiries, Moore said.

Concerns about the communications firms are related to seven “anchor organizations” charged with conducting community “listening sessions,” according to Moore.

The anchor organizations — different from the communications firms — are tasked with hosting public listening sessions in April, May and June, said task force member Dr. Cheryl Grills, a professor of psychology at Loyola Marymount University.

The “anchor orgs,” as they are referred to in meetings, will help the task force hear various perspectives of Black Californians as it assesses the extent of the state’s involvement in slavery and Jim Crow discrimination.

Grills took issue with Moore raising concerns about the communications firms, specifically bringing up allegations involving her, without giving prior notice before speaking about them in public.

Pushing back, Grills publicly said Moore met with an attorney that “organizes” and “convenes” meetings for the anchor organizations a week before the task force’s eighth meeting held March 29 and March 30. Moore did not lodge any complaints with the attorney, Grills stated.

“You didn’t raise any concerns, so then you bring it up in a public forum,” Grills told Moore during the meeting. “You cast a potentially negative light on the communications firms and the Bunche Center. That feels unfair to me. From a process perspective, this is troubling to me how you are operating.”

On the afternoon of April 14, the communications firms will present their strategies for responding to press inquiries, facilitating meetings for the anchor organizations and educating the California public on report findings.

The Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies was founded in 1969 as the Center for Afro-American Studies. It was renamed in 2003 for diplomat, scholar, activist, and UCLA alumnus Ralph J. Bunche, who was the first Black person to win the Nobel prize.

According to its website, the Bunche Center supports research that expands the knowledge of the history, lifestyles, and sociocultural systems of people of African descent. It also “investigates problems” that have relevance to the psychological, social, and economic well-being of persons of African descent.

By statute, the task force must issue a report to the Legislature by June 1, 2022. Their findings will be available to the public.

Other task force members who have fielded complaints about the communications firms are Sen. Steve Bradford (D-Gardena), Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), and San Diego City Councilwoman Monica Montgomery-Steppe.

Brown told the nine-member panel that “communications have to be at an optimum.”

He told his colleagues that the task force must leverage mainstream media, and Black-owned newspaper reporters, editors, and publishers should be contacted and informed of the group’s activities.

The civil rights leader said that Black churches, nonprofits that do community activism, and social organizations should have inside knowledge of the task force leading up and after the reports are submitted to the state Legislature.

“We’re in the driver’s seat. We have to tell them what we want to be done without delay,” Brown said of the communications firms. “If they can’t fulfill it…we might have to make a change.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

#4.19.2022 The Headlines

Don't Miss

San Leandro Resident Daisy Murray, 104, Honored

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

1 day ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

1 day ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

1 day ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”