Connect with us

Activism

Reparations Task Force: What to Expect in the Committee’s First Report

California’s AB 3121, signed into law in 2020, created the nine-member task force to investigate the history and costs of slavery in California and around the United States. AB 3121 charges the Reparations Task Force with studying the institution of slavery and its lingering negative effects on Black Californians who are descendants of persons enslaved in the United States.

Published

on

Six of the nine members of the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans. From left to right are Don Tamaki, Jovan Scott Lewis, chair Kamilah Moore, vice-chair Dr. Rev. Amos Brown, Dr. Cheryl Grills, and California State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena). CBM photo by Antonio Ray Harvey.
Six of the nine members of the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans. From left to right are Don Tamaki, Jovan Scott Lewis, chair Kamilah Moore, vice-chair Dr. Rev. Amos Brown, Dr. Cheryl Grills, and California State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena). CBM photo by Antonio Ray Harvey.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

The California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans will submit its first report to the California Legislature in June.

The 13-chapter document will detail the committee’s findings so far and include recommendations related to them.

Task force member Donald K. Tamaki said the “comprehensive report connects the dots between past racism and its current consequences.” He also inferred that the report presents a “landmark opportunity” to shape the national conversation around reparations.

“I think the report will not only attract California publicity but will also be looked upon nationally,” Tamaki said before the task force approved the report. “With the report, we can go out to the people to develop an allyship and (generate) support for it.”

As prescribed in Assembly Bill (AB) 3121, the report will establish how California laws and policies have disproportionately and negatively affected African Americans. The report will be available to the public.

The California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Enforcement Section formulated the document based on hearings, expert testimonies, and evidence accumulated since the panel first convened on June 1, 2021.

One of the DOJ’s duties is to facilitate task force consultation with various experts on California history and reparations. The department also provides administrative, technical, and legal assistance to the panel.

The preliminary report opens with an introduction that leads to chapters focused on enslavement, racial terror and political disenfranchisement, among others. It also covers a range of topics documenting historical injustices Black Americans have endured, including housing segregation, separate and unequal education, environmental racism, and others.

Titles such as “Pathologizing the Black Family;” “Control over Spiritual, Creative and Cultural life;” “Stolen Labor and Hindered Opportunity;” and “An Unjust Legal System,” among others, frame the testimonies and historical accounts recorded during the task force meetings.

Task Force Chair Kamilah Moore wrote the foreword. Her introduction is an overview of the task force’s activities over the last year.

“This interim report will catalog all those harms we’ve discussed throughout those two-day virtual meetings since June of last year,” Moore said in an online Blk TLK Platform discussion in April. “It will also have some preliminary recommendations for the legislation to adopt.”

The first report was supervised by Michael Newman, the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Senior Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Enforcement Section (DOJCRE).

The task force voted to describe the first presentation, the “Interim Report.”

Tamaki said about 10 DOJCRE attorneys — including Deputy Attorney General Xiyun Yang, DOJCRE Legal Assistant Francisco Balderrama and additional DOJ staff members created the report.

In a collaborative effort, the diverse DOJCRE team, Newman added, consulted with the task force to determine edits, make clarifications in terminology, modify corrections, and implement recommendations.

“It was a labor of love for everyone who worked on it,” Newman said during the task force meeting held in San Francisco on April 14. “I also want to thank all of the (task force) members and the community’s input in producing an incredible record.”

California’s AB 3121, signed into law in 2020, created the nine-member task force to investigate the history and costs of slavery in California and around the United States. AB 3121 charges the Reparations Task Force with studying the institution of slavery and its lingering negative effects on Black Californians who are descendants of persons enslaved in the United States.

The group is tasked with studying and developing reparation proposals for African Americans and recommending appropriate ways to educate Californians about the task force’s findings.

After the task force decided on March 30 that lineage will determine who will be eligible for compensation, the panel approved a framework for calculating how much should be paid — and for which offenses — to individuals who are Black descendants of enslaved people in the United States.

An expert team of economists identified 13 categories that would be the basis of the method used to calculate damages and determine what constitutes harms and atrocities. A second report is due by July 2023 when the task force two-year charge is expected to end.

Members of the task force include Moore, a Los Angeles-based attorney, reparations scholar and activist; vice-chair Dr. Amos Brown, a civil rights leader and respected Bay Area pastor whose journey to leadership started under the tutelage of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s; Cheryl Grills, a professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles; and Lisa Holder, a nationally recognized trial attorney.

Rounding out the panel are Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena); Assemblymember Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles); San Diego Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe; Dr. Jovan Scott Lewis, chair of the Department of Geography at the University of California Berkeley; and Donald Tamaki, Esq. is an attorney best known for his role in the reopening of the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. the United States, which led to the conviction being overturned of Fred Korematsu who refused to be taken into custody during the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in World War II.

For more information, visit https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121#

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.