As a scholar of race and inequality and a professor of African American Studies at San José State University who researches and teaches about the enduring impact of systemic and structural racism in the U.S., I know that the draft plan makes viable recommendations for reparations that are adequate and proportional to the harms inflicted on Black San Franciscans across multiple generations. The United Nations defines reparations as “measures to redress violations of human rights by providing a range of material and symbolic benefits to victims or their families as well as affected communities.” 

The draft plan gives recommendations that address issues in the areas of economic empowerment, education, health, and policy. For example, it proposes improvements to affordable rental housing accessibility and the expansion of homeownership opportunities, financial investments in Black entrepreneurship and business, the creation of community-informed programs to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline that criminalizes Black children, the promotion of long-term solutions to the social determinants of health that contribute to a lower life expectancy for Black people in the U.S., and the repeal of Proposition 209 that eliminated government funded affirmative action programs in California that some argue has led to a significant decrease in Black representation in higher education, public employment, and an annual loss of $1 billion in contract dollars by businesses owned by women and people of color. 

And yes, it also recommends that the City and County of San Francisco formally recognize the institutional harms inflicted on Black residents and issue a public apology. 

These types of proposals were unfortunately overshowed by the national attention that primarily focused on the recommendation of a cash payment of $5 million to each eligible person. Nevertheless, the Advisory Committee’s draft plan outlines a promising and commendable path forward for San Francisco to atone for the atrocities inflicted on Black residents under systemic and structural racism. 

Some opponents of the draft plan argue that it’s unwarranted because California never sanctioned slavery. They maintain that slavery is an issue of the past and that San Franciscans shouldn’t have to pay for crimes they didn’t commit. Others are concerned about the city’s bottom line and assert that San Francisco simply can’t afford reparations amidst the near $800 million deficit. 

While such objections are understandable, the draft plan boldly declares that, “While neither San Francisco, nor California, formally adopted the institution of chattel slavery, the tenants of segregation, white supremacy, and systemic repression and exclusion of Black people were codified through legal and extralegal social codes and judicial enforcement.” That system of repression and exclusion of Black people included, among other things, housing segregation, discriminatory land use policy, discriminatory bank lending practices (like redlining), workforce discrimination, education discrimination, urban renewal, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. These acts of racism were inflicted on Black San Franciscans after the abolition of slavery. Accordingly, the recommendations outlined in the draft plan are designed with the intent to atone for these acts of racism that constrained the life chances of Black San Franciscans, both past and present. 

Moreover, as Mayor Breed recently stated, despite her opposition to creating a San Francisco reparations office amidst the current budget deficit, the types of investments advocated in the draft plan will have a “tremendous impact” on long-time disenfranchised San Franciscans. The Board of Supervisors must consider the financial and moral cost of failing to act to atone for a legacy of systemic and structural racism in the city and county. 

While it may not be possible to enact all of the recommendations simultaneously, it’s important that all San Franciscans substantively engage the Advisory Committee’s draft reparations plan despite the foreseeable political and financial obstacles. The draft plan makes a strong case for reparations. 

According to the UN, reparations should address four themes: 

First, restitution that aims to restore victims to their original situation before the violation occurred. 

Second, compensation for economically assessable damage, loss of earnings, property, or other economic opportunities, and for moral damages inflicted on injured parties. 

Third, rehabilitation that may include access to medical and psychological care and social services.

Finally, satisfaction that may include the end of perpetual violations, a public apology for inflicted harm, legal action, commemorations, and memorials. 

The draft plan makes recommendations across these themes and the Board of Supervisors must substantively adopt them. 

As a poverty, race, and inequality scholar and professor of African American Studies who attended and spoke at the First Session in Geneva last December, I know that the work of the Permanent Forum is instrumental in the effort to eliminate racial inequality. The Biden administration and Congress must substantively support the Permanent Forum to address systemic and structural racism and racial inequality in the U.S. 

The General Assembly established the Permanent Forum with the intent to use it as an advisory body for people of African descent and other relevant stakeholders to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Toward this end, its mandate outlines primary objectives that include: 

1) Contributions to the full political, economic, and social inclusion of people of African descent in the societies in which they live as equal citizens,

2) The provision of expert advice and recommendations to the Human Rights Council and other U.N. agencies that address racism, and  

3) The identification of best practices, opportunities, and initiatives to end racism. 

These are only three of the nine objectives identified by the mandate, which is both timely and imperative. Racism and racial inequality unfortunately persist, particularly in the U.S. 

A report by the National Fair Housing Alliance details how the housing appraisal industry perpetually undervalues homes in communities of color. Racial appraisal bias is one of the key drivers of the racial wealth gap. A study on COVID-19 shows that racial health inequities have led to the disparate impact of the pandemic on Black communities. Black people are more than twice as likely to be hospitalized and nearly twice as likely to die of the disease than white people. 

And the casual brutality illustrated by the murder of George Floyd and most recently Jordan Neely, another unarmed Black man who was fatally choked on a subway train in New York City, is a tragic reminder of the events that led so many to take to the streets in protest proclaiming that Black Lives Matter.  

These and other issues were discussed at the First Session in Geneva among an international network of representatives from civil society and government. The Second Session will produce formal recommendations to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

Those recommendations will require adequate funding from the U.N. to enact them. Here’s the problem: Leadership of the Permanent Forum expressed concern during the First Session that there is insufficient funding to undertake the full scope of the mandate. The funding for the Permanent Forum is allocated from the budget for the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, the majority of which relies on voluntary contributions from Member States and other donors. The U.N. reports that last year’s voluntary contributions “were insufficient to respond to all requests for assistance or needs identified by U.N. Human Rights.” 

The budget deficit means that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly will be constrained in efforts to act on the recommendations of the Permanent Forum. The U.N. needs Member states to increase their voluntary contributions and this is where the U.S. can assume a leadership role. As of April 30, 2023, the U.S. ranks 13th in its voluntary contributions behind Germany, Canada, Ireland, Finland, and New Zealand, among others. 

The Biden administration and Congress must increase U.S. voluntary contributions to the U.N. in efforts to repair our reputation on the global stage and the Permanent Forum is an important reason to do so. It presents a remarkable opportunity for the U.S. to promote the human rights of people of African descent both domestically and abroad by redressing issues of racial inequality. We must substantively support the Permanent Forum by providing ample funding to the U.N. as it, in partnership with Member States, strives to end the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related forms of intolerance.