Cash for the past? Why Evanston’s reparations program misses the mark

Evanston, Illinoismade history in 2021 by enacting the nation’s first race-based reparations plan for past residential discrimination against Black residents. Since the program began, the city has issued about 40 payments each year to eligible residents. Last year**, the city** issued 45. This time, the number is 44, for a total of about $4 million. However, no matter how many checks Evanston sends, the effect will be, at best, merely symbolic. At worst, they are confusing, confusing, and potentially illegal.

This year, Evanston will Send payments of $25,000 to 44 Black Residents and descendants of black residents who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969. The program, funded primarily through the city’s property transfer tax, aims to address a legacy Housing Discrimination in Evanston — a city that, like much of the country, imposed restrictive covenants and other barriers that prevented black residents from buying homes. Although the plan is based on the desire to right the wrongs of the past, it raises significant constitutional, practical, and ethical concerns.

Evanston’s program is inherently race-specific, providing benefits only to black residents who meet narrow historical criteria. This raises an obvious legal question: Can the government distribute money based on race? Critics have already tagged the show as Constitutionally questionable under equal protectionEqual protection clause From the Fourteenth Amendment. Beyond legitimacy, there is a broader question about justice. The program compensates some individuals while excluding others who may face equal or greater financial need. Evanston’s wealthier black residents receive the same payments as those who struggle economically, while lower-income residents of other races get nothing. Doesn’t the poor white person need this money more?

Illinois city distributes $25,000 cash payments to 44 black residents through reparations program

The program structure is also confusing. While the Evanston payments center on historical housing discrimination between 1919 and 1969, this period does not reflect the full scope of systemic racial inequality. Restrictive housing practices existed before and after that window. However, the city drew an arbitrary line, oversimplifying a complex history in a single shot. It may be administratively appropriate, but it is not entirely thoughtful.

A $25,000 payment may provide temporary relief for some recipients, but investments in education, financial literacy and other community-building initiatives could provide more long-term benefits. These types of investments would be better than providing individual relief in the short term.

None of this is to say that compensation programs are inherently bad. the The government has previously compensated the groups Who suffered clear and direct injustices – Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II, for example.

San Francisco residents are banding together to shut down the reparations fund, claiming it is “dividing” the city

By contrast, Evanston’s payments go only to those who were living in the city during the period of discrimination, regardless of whether they personally experienced it. While past discrimination may have created obstacles to wealth accumulation, evidence also shows that many black Americans have achieved upward mobility through their own efforts. The fact that 80% of black Americans are middle class or above greatly undermines this point. What does it mean that black Americans like my father achieved upward mobility without this help?

Judicial Watch sued a compensation program in Evanston, Illinois, over its use of race as a condition of eligibility for the program. The program issues $25,000 direct cash payments to Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969. Evanston was the first city in the country to pass a reparations plan, pledging $10 million over a decade to black residents. (Getty Images)

What about the fact that it is given Equal opportunities – And not just a cash handout – was it all they needed to give themselves and their children a better life?

Click here for more Fox News opinions

A $25,000 payment may provide temporary relief for some recipients, but investments in education, financial literacy and other community-building initiatives could provide more long-term benefits. These types of investments would be better than providing individual relief in the short term.

Also from an ethical standpoint, the idea of ​​placing a monetary value on past suffering is inherently offensive. No amount of money can undo decades of damage caused by apartheid. Reparations, when narrowly tailored to the form of cash payments, appear to be effective. This reparations program, and the idea of ​​reparations in general, ignores the realities of contemporary America, where socioeconomic status—regardless of race—is the most salient issue.

Ultimately, Evanston’s reparations program highlights the tension between historical justice and practical politics. On the one hand, it is a serious attempt to confront the city’s past.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

On the other hand, its design—race-specific, administratively narrow, and cash-focused—raises legal, ethical, and strategic concerns. A more comprehensive approach might focus on opportunity rather than compensation, and address systemic inequalities through policies that expand access to quality education, affordable housing, and economic development. By investing in structures that empower communities over the long term, cities can confront historical injustices in ways that are more equitable, sustainable, and legally defensible.

Evanston’s reparations program may be a sincere gesture, but it is a misguided idea built on racial essentialism — the idea that all black people are the same — a waste of resources because the money could be put to better use, and certainly morally questionable. Individual beneficiaries may be happier, but the long-term effects of this program may do more harm than good.