San Francisco’s Reparations Program — and What It Reveals About City Leaders

Recently, Evanston, Ill., enacted the first reparations program in the country. San Francisco is following suit, but its reparations plan is less about policy and more about performance.

What is being sold as a moral reckoning and care for citizens in need feels more like a moral play, meant to lull the intended recipients into a false sense of hope.

In December, Mayor Daniel Lurie signed a bill, unanimously passed by the city’s Board of Supervisors, that created a mechanism for distributing a one-time $5 million payment to eligible black residents as a form of reparations.

It was not long before taxpayers and civil-rights advocacy organizations sued the city for violating the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

They had a compelling case: Allocating public funds to people based solely on race and ancestry is a pretty clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as California’s own state constitution.

But those suing the city may be wasting their time. Not because the suit has no chance (winning the lawsuit is almost certain), but rather because the San Francisco government never intended the program to be implemented in the first place.

That’s a conclusion strongly suggested by the fact that there is no money; it is literally a fund with no funds.

The city announced the program knowing it has nearly a $1 billion deficit. Lawmakers have encouraged private donations, but using a city-sanctioned mechanism to direct funds, even private funds, to a group based on race remains unconstitutional.

The city’s Human Rights Commission and Reparations Advisory Committee originally drafted the proposal to address “institutional, city-sanctioned harm” against African Americans within the city limits.

But $5 million is nothing but performative pandering. What does that say about how the city really feels about its black residents?

The faux program brings back bad memories for me. When I was an academic, performative virtue signaling was (and still is) rampant. It was never “real” in a practical and pragmatic sense.

“Land acknowledgements” were made with no intention of returning the land. Diversity statements were written that allowed white people to self-deprecate, ostensibly to boost non-white self-esteem. It was all a play told in several thoroughly annoying acts.

All of it, reparations included, is a pattern of paternalistic behavior, managing emotional and social perception rather than directly engaging with the underlying issue of inequality.

What’s more, the distribution of reparations would be a logistical nightmare. Do wealthy black residents who do not need the money still qualify? Do individuals without documented proof of harm qualify? What will they say to poor non-black residents who may need assistance?

These are just some of the questions that make the reparations plan a senseless quagmire, and the mayor’s office knows that. It was never a serious endeavor.

San Francisco’s proposed fund is simply virtue signaling at scale. By showing black citizens that politicians tried to do the “right” thing but were thwarted by legal pushback, and a lack of fellow citizens decent enough to donate their funds, Lurie hopes to build political support based on the idea that “it’s the thought that counts.”

At least Evanston’s reparations program involves small amounts of real money. San Francisco’s reparations program is a joke, and it’s not even that funny.