Bay Area

OUSD Board Delays Vote on Reparations Resolution for Black Students

“There is not one Black family in OUSD that hasn’t experienced the pain of anti-Black racism in our schools,” reads a statement on reparationsforblackstudents.org, a website run by the Justice 4 Oakland Students Coalition in support of the bill. “Now is the time to look at the solutions from the Black community and invest in the remaining Black students.”

Published

5 years ago

March 12, 2021

Mia Lane

Former site of Lakeview Elementary School, a majority Black school which OUSD closed in 2012. Lakeview Elementary was a majority Black public school. Currently American Indian Charter School, a majority none Black school, has taken over its campus. The Reparations for Black Students Resolution would protect schools like Lakeview, who have at least 30% Black students, from facing closure. Photo by Zack Haber on March 9.

During a Oakland School Board meeting last month, the Board decided to delay a vote to approve The Reparations for Black Students Resolution until March 24, preventing the resolution from being approved during Black History Month and frustrating many who had organized and advocated for the bill’s passing.

The Justice for Oakland Students Coalition includes:Oakland Education Association, The Black Organizing Project, Teachers for Social Justice, Parents United for Public Schools, and other local community organizations. The coalition inspired and informed the resolution after two years of listening sessions with Black students, parents, educators and District staff.

The resolution seeks to address the harm Black students, families and teachers have faced in OUSD including: the closure of 16 schools with a significant population of Black students in the last 15 years, a disproportionately low graduation rate and disproportionately high suspension rate among Black students, and a loss of about 67% percent of OUSD’s Black student population since 2000.

The board slowly came to their decisions to delay during two hours of tense discussion, brief public comments, and votes from about 11:00 p.m. February 24 to 1:00 a.m. on Feb 25. Board Director Clifford Thompson prompted the process by proposing amendments to erase much of the resolution.

“I back the resolution 100%, but I’m just taking out a few things,” said Thompson while proposing the cuts.

Clifford proposed cutting all of the following from the resolution: protections to stop schools with 30% or more Black students from facing closure; requirements for the superintendent to implement a retention plan for Black teachers;creation of an emergency fund to help Black families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to pay rent, protections for Black students with disabilities on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and all references to charter schools.

The resolution contains about 1,650 words that, if passed, would require action from the Oakland Unified School District. Thompson proposed cutting about 1,300 of these words, or about 80% of the actionable language. Director Aimee Engproposed adding about 90 words to the resolution that direct the Board and superintendent to “seek public, private and philanthropic partnerships” that would “resource targeted investments to accelerate the academic outcomes and support the social emotional well–being of Black students.”

Neither Thompson nor Eng made their proposed amendments visible to the public or other Board members before the meeting. General Counsel Joshua Daniels made Thompson’s amendments visible during the Zoom meeting for less than five minutes. Eng showed those attending and participating in the meeting her amendments by sharing her screen for less than three minutes.

Board members VanCedric Williams and Mike Hutchinson, who wrote the current version of the resolution, expressed deep frustration at the proposed cuts and changes to the bill.

“Let’s not try to cut this down into a meaningless resolution and then walk away feeling good,” said Williams about Thompson’s proposed cuts. “We cannot play these games anymore. We really have to stand up to what our values are.”

After about 30 minutes of discussion from Board members and Supt. Kyla Johnson-Trammell, Hutchinson called for the discussion of cuts to the bill to be ended and for the Board to vote on whether or not to implement it. All Board members except Hutchinson, Williams and student Board Director Jessica, Ramos voted to continue to discuss the changes.

“Not only do I find this extremely offensive,” said Hutchinson upon hearing that the Board wanted to continue discussing changes to the bill, “but it sure feels anti-Black to me.”

During the meeting Ramos claimed hundreds of students were texting her to express disappointment in the proposed changes to the bill.

“This is very sad,” Ramos said. “You know when someone chews your food and then spits it back out? That’s how this feels.”

Board member Sam Davis, however, claimed compromise and accepting less than what the community initially asked for was essential.

“You can’t take something exactly as written because you have to accommodate the reality you’re working in,” Davis said. “To me, something is better than nothing and this addresses some of the demands the community had brought forth.”

Board President Shanthi Gonzalez pushed for a slower process that would allow more time to craft a bill that was “more acceptable and that everyone could live with.”

“I think it’s just happening too fast,” said Gonzalez. “It would make sense to slow down. Everything our Board does is a product of negotiation.”

Williams and Hutchinson both claimed they had reached out to other Board members for their input on the bill and questioned why the changes were being presented during the meeting instead of beforehand.

“You said you thought this was moving too fast, now you’re trying to re-write it on the spot,” said Hutchinson. “You didn’t try to do this last week when it was originally written.”

Before voting on the proposed amendments, the Board heard public comments. All 15 people who were allowed to speak opposed the amendments and called for the Board to approve the original resolution. Dozens of other Oakland community members asked to speak, including District 3 Council-member Carroll Fife, but were not allowed to.

After hearing public comment, the Board voted on whether to accept Thompson and Eng’s amendments. Ramos abstained from voting. Williams and Hutchinson voted “no.” All other Board members voted to accept the changes, and the amendments passed.

Then Williams made a motion to ask the Board to vote on whether or not to change the name of the resolution, as it stood in its current form, to ‘The White Supremacy Resolution,’claiming that it now did the opposite of what it had originally set out to do.

“That wasn’t hyperbole and he wasn’t joking,” said Hutchinson after seconding Williams’ motion. “You turn Black reparations into another exercise in white supremacy.”

Ramos, Williams and Hutchinson voted to approve the motion to change name of The Reparations For Black Students Resolution to The White Supremacy Resolution, while all other Board members voted against the name change.

After more discussion of the bill, Gonzalez suggested taking more time to compromise on a version of the resolutionthe Board could agree on and admitted that the current version was “substantially different” from the original one. Williams agreed as long as discussions about changing the bill could start from its original form.

“Please stop messing with this,” he said. “Put it back to the original and we’ll debate it.”

All Board members voted to restore the resolution back to its original form, except for Thompson and Board Director Gary Yee, who voted to keep the amendments.

Then the Board voted to delay the vote to approve the Reparations for Black Students Resolution until March 24. On that vote, Ramos abstained from voting. Hutchinson voted “no.” All other Board members voted to accept the delay.

Since the vote to delay, community members have been vocal about rejecting any changes to the bill and urging board members to vote yes at the March 24 meeting. On February 26, dozens of Oakland students and community members rallied outside of Board member Sam Davis’ home.

“You can make the discussion to support it now or we can have civil disobedience later,” said a student through a megaphone at the rally. “We believe it is vital to support The Reparations for Black Students Resolution as written by the community.”

Davis thanked the students for coming by and told them he would vote “yes” on the resolution and reject amendments on March 24.

Mia Lane

Posts by Mia Lane

Up Next

Senate Passes $1.9 Trillion American Rescue Plan

Don't Miss

Senate Confirms Marcia Fudge as HUD Secretary

Mia Lane

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

2 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 6 – 12, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of may 6 – 12, 2026

Published

3 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

On the Frontlines of Hate: NAACP Links Victims to Critical Support

The NAACP CA/HI has a long and well-established record of supporting victims of discrimination and hate crimes — providing critical referrals and, when necessary, direct assistance through legal advocacy and other forms of support. Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 1, 2026

Oakland Post

NAACP members at a recent advocacy day in Sacramento urging lawmakers to protect voting rights. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

By Joe Kocurek
California Black Media

The California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP (CA/HI NAACP) has expanded its efforts to respond to rising hate incidents and civil rights complaints across California, supported in part by funding from California’s Stop the Hate Program

Through that grant, NAACP CA/HI has strengthened its ability to connect individuals experiencing hate or discrimination with critical resources. This includes referring those who file complaints to the CA vs Hate hotline, a statewide, non-emergency hate crime and incident reporting hotline and online portal created to help counter a more than 50% increase in reported hate crimes in California between 2020 and 2024. The system helps ensure incidents are documented, and victims are guided toward appropriate support.

LaJuana Bivens says the work of NAACP is as urgent as ever. Photo by Regina Wilson, California Black Media.

LaJuana Bivens, who has served in a number of roles within the NAACP, said California has seen an increase in civil rights violations and hate-related incidents.

“We have 52 branches, and they are constantly receiving complaints,” she said. “So, without the Stop the Hate, we would not be able to refer those cases up to attorneys at the state level. A lot of the people would not have had an opportunity to be heard.”

Carmen-Nicole Cox helps survivors of hate with their legal options. Photo courtesy of Carmen-Nicole Cox.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, an attorney who works with NAACP CA/HI – as a part of California’s Stop the Hate Program – provides legal consultation to victims of hate incidents and discrimination through her legal practice, the Cox Firm for Law and Policy.

She said the complaints she receives span a wide range of issues.

“People are having home builders and landlords refusing to provide repairs, a student was denied promotion in an academic program, and targeted scrutiny at work,” she said. “It’s typically employment; it’s housing; it’s education.

“We’ll meet and they’ll share their experiences,” she said. “And then I make assessments about possible legal claims.”

According to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), nearly 1,200 reports of hate against minority groups were submitted in 2024 through the CA vs Hate hotline and online portal for non-emergency incidents.

While the California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, which has tens of thousands of members, does not directly investigate hate incidents or crimes, it plays a key role in connecting victims to the state’s reporting systems and support services.

Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Bivens recently traveled to Sacramento to speak with state lawmakers about voting rights during an advocacy day event hosted by the organization.

“It’s just so hard for communities of color to be up to date because of all of the confusing information coming from the federal level,” she said. “I love our great state of California because here it is possible to vote by mail and to vote early.

“And I’m seeing that trying to be eroded. So, I’m here to urge continued support for vote by mail and early voting.”

When Texas moved to redraw congressional districts in ways critics said would dilute minority voting strength, NAACP CA/HI supported the passage of Proposition 50 in California. The organization also intervened in United States v. Shirley Weber, where federal officials sought access to unredacted California voter records, including Social Security numbers, raising concerns about misuse and voter intimidation.

Cultivating the advocacy and leaderships of young people is central to NAACP’s mission to fight racism and dismantle inequality. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

A federal district court dismissed that case in January 2026.

The organization’s current work builds on a long history of civil rights advocacy. Today, Bivens says, the organization’s mission remains as urgent as ever.

“We are the oldest, boldest, most feared Civil Rights organization,” Bivens said. “What we do every day is fight for better housing, education, economic development and political inclusion. We take it on because there are just so many people who need that support.

“You would be amazed that our phones ring every single day.”

Get Support After Hate:

California vs Hate is a non-emergency, multilingual hotline and online portal offering confidential support for hate crimes and incidents. Victims and witnesses can get help anonymously by calling 833-8-NO-HATE (833-866-4283), Monday to Friday, 9 a.m.–6 p.m. PT, or online at any time. Anonymous. Confidential. No Police. No ICE.

This story was produced in partnership with CA vs Hate. Join them for the first-ever CA Civil Rights Summit on May 11. More information at www.cavshate.org/summit.

https://youtu.be/_k7UVhI-sN8