As the Trump administration continues to challenge diversity programs, California lawmakers are mulling over a significant bill that would allow state colleges to consider whether applicants are descendants of African Americans who were enslaved in the United States.
This legislation is part of a broader set of 15 reparations bills championed by the California Legislative Black Caucus that are currently being deliberated during this legislative session.
Assembly Bill 7, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), has the potential to navigate around California’s prohibition on affirmative action. Since 1996, California voters have supported Proposition 209, which prevents colleges from factoring in race, sex, ethnicity, color, or national origin during the admissions process. The legal landscape became even more challenging in 2023 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such programs are unconstitutional.
Despite the legal constraints, Bryan contends that his proposal does not directly address race, avoiding specific terms like “Black” or “African American” in its language.
In an interview with The Times, Bryan explained, “Descendants of people who are enslaved could identify in a variety of racial ways, and then phenotypically even present in different ways than they racially identify. But if your ancestors were enslaved in this country, then there’s a direct lineage-based tie to harms that were inflicted during enslavement and in the after lives thereafter.”
Bryan emphasized the importance of this bill among California’s legislative priorities, stating that it represents the state’s values and the commitment to recognize historical harms while striving to create an inclusive future.
“California is quite clear where it positions itself in this moment, and that is in the support of all people, recognizing the harms of the past and trying to build a future that includes everybody. And if that appears in conflict with the federal government, I think that has more to do with the way the government is posturing than who we are as Californians,” he asserted.
The reparations proposals have received overwhelming support from the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature, though prior efforts have been met with mixed success. In the previous year, out of 14 reparations bills, only 10 managed to pass through the legislative process, prompting advocates to view these results as a foundational step rather than a complete victory.
Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) noted in September that there is an ongoing commitment to build upon the initial legislation aimed at remedying past injustices.
While the focus of AB 7 on lineage raises questions about its constitutional viability, experts like Taifha Alexander, who teaches at UCLA and specializes in critical race theory, caution that it may encounter legal challenges if courts perceive the bill to use lineage as a proxy for race. If such a ruling occurs, it could be deemed unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
In an effort to clarify the legal distinction between race and lineage, another proposed bill, Senate Bill 518, aims to establish a state bureau dedicated to descendants of American slavery. This agency would verify individual status as a descendant and facilitate access to benefits for applicants.
The idea of reparations is not unprecedented in the United States. Historical precedents exist, such as the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, in which the federal government issued a formal apology and reparations to Japanese Americans who were unjustly incarcerated during World War II, providing a one-time payment of $20,000 to survivors.
Despite the historical context and ongoing discussions around reparations, recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies revealed a significant portion of California voters opposed cash reparations for descendants of slaves. Over 40% of respondents expressed strong opposition, and 59% opposed the idea overall, with only 28% in favor. Notably, the current bills under consideration by lawmakers do not include monetary reparations.
Alternatives to financial reparations, such as changes to college admissions policies and various social programs aimed at addressing systemic inequities, remain viable paths forward, according to Alexander.
However, the controversial nature of AB 7, which seeks to navigate existing legal frameworks, may encounter resistance from the public, who could perceive it as unjust or inequitable.
Given the recent Supreme Court ruling that restricts the use of race in college admissions, observers like Alexander speculate that public sentiment may not support such a proposal. Furthermore, opponents argue that the distinction between race and ancestry is insufficient to protect the measure from judicial scrutiny.
Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions and the attorney who successfully argued for the ban on affirmative action, contended that the bill disguises a race-linked classification under the guise of ancestry. He asserted that the legislation would not survive judicial review, anticipating a swift legal challenge if enacted.
“Suppose, instead, that a state passed a law making university admission more difficult for descendants of American slavery. Would anyone argue that such a law should be upheld? Of course not,” Blum commented in a statement to The Times, emphasizing the perceived flaws in Bill AB 7.
In addition to AB 7, there are other measures currently being pursued by California lawmakers aimed at addressing historical inequalities. These include initiatives to allocate home purchase assistance funds specifically for descendants of American slavery seeking to buy their first homes, as well as directives for state agencies to tackle mortgage lending discrimination.
Nevertheless, several proposed reparations bills that did not pass included a constitutional amendment intended to prohibit prisons from mandating inmate labor, which some critics argue resembles state-sanctioned slavery or indentured servitude.
image source from：latimes
