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

Bay Area

Oakland Mayor Pushes Charter Overhaul to Clarify Roles in City Government, Increase Accountability and Improve Service Delivery

Under the proposal, the mayor would serve as Oakland’s chief executive, overseeing city departments, implementing policy, proposing the annual budget, and managing day-to-day operations. The measure would also give the mayor veto power over legislation and the budget, though the City Council could override a veto with a two-thirds vote.

Published

3 weeks ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee. File photo.

By Oakland Post Staff

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee is backing a sweeping proposal to restructure Oakland’s government, arguing the changes would make City Hall more accountable and improve the delivery of basic services like public safety, homelessness response, and infrastructure repairs.

The charter reform measure, introduced April 7 and co-sponsored by Oakland City Council President Kevin Jenkins, would ask voters in November to approve a “strong mayor, strong council” system designed to create clearer lines of authority inside city government.

The City Council, meanwhile, would maintain legislative authority by adopting ordinances, approving budgets, conducting oversight hearings, and confirming key mayoral appointments. The proposal would also create an Independent Budget and Legislative Analyst Office to provide nonpartisan fiscal and policy analysis for councilmembers.

“I’ve spent months listening to Oaklanders across every neighborhood about what they expect from their city government,” Lee said. “The Charter Reform Working Group’s engagement made clear that residents want a system where there are no questions about who is responsible for delivering results on public safety, homelessness, infrastructure, and basic services.”

Jenkins said the proposal would strengthen both executive leadership and council oversight.

“I’ve long believed Oakland works best when residents have clear lines of accountability and a government structure that aligns responsibility with results,” Jenkins said.

The proposal follows recommendations from the Mayor’s Charter Reform Working Group, co-facilitated by the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR.

Over five months, the group conducted more than 60 interviews, held 14 public meetings across Oakland, and engaged more than 750 residents while reviewing governance models used in other cities.

“The process of engaging residents across Oakland surfaced the governance clarity Oakland needs,” said Sujata Srivastava of SPUR. “The Charter Reform Working Group has produced a thoughtful set of recommendations that if adopted could strengthen accountability and improve service delivery across city government.”

Polling cited by the mayor’s office suggests voters may be open to the changes. A February 2026 poll by the East Bay Polling Institute found 64% of voters support adopting a strong-mayor system. Separate polling conducted by the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and David Binder Research found support ranging from 61% to 63% among likely voters.

The measure is scheduled to be heard by the City Council Rules Committee on May 21. If approved by the council, it would appear on the November 2026 ballot, where Oakland voters would have the final say.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

The Ladies of Delta Sigma Theta Hold Day of Advocacy at the Capitol in Sacramento

A member of the “Divine Nine,” Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., was founded on Jan. 13, 1913, at Howard University in Washington, D.C. The organization was established by 22 women who sought to shift the group’s focus from social activities to public service, academic excellence, and social activism.

Published

3 weeks ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Sen. Laura Richardson (D-San Pedro) presents a Senate resolution to the Delta Theta Sigma Sorority Farwest Region at the State Capitol on May 4. Photo courtesy of the Senate Rules Committee.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

On May 4, members of the Farwest Region of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., convened at the California State Capitol for the organization’s 23rd annual Delta Days in Sacramento.

The two-day advocacy event brings together chapters from across California to engage directly in the legislative process, connect with lawmakers, and advocate for policies impacting Black communities.

Members of the sorority were honored on the Senate floor by Sen. Laura Richardson (D-San Pedro), who is also a member of Delta Sigma Theta.

Richardson welcomed the Farwest Region during the presentation of a Senate resolution recognizing outgoing Regional Director Kimberly Usher for her leadership and service.

“In addition to the Far West Region, we are led by a fearless leader, regional director Kimberly Usher. She has now served her full term of what’s allowed,” Richardson said. “We are going to be having our regional conference, but we wanted to give it to her here, officially recognizing her service.”

The resolution was co-authored by Richardson and fellow members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) and Delta Sigma Theta, Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego) and Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom (D-Stockton).

Usher has served in the leadership role since 2022.

“We are founded on sisterhood that is deeply rooted in scholarship, service, and social action,” said Weber Pierson, a member of the Gamma Alpha chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.

“Today, we continue a legacy of empowering communities and upholding the high cultural, intellectual, and moral standards established by our founders over a century ago,” she added.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Q&A with Steven Bradford: Why He Wants Your Vote for California Insurance Commissioner

Known for his work on issues ranging from energy and public safety to economic development, Bradford has also engaged with insurance policy during his time in the Legislature, serving on the Senate Insurance Committee.

Published

3 weeks ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Hon. Steve Bradford, candidate for California Insurance Commissioner.

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

As California confronts rising insurance costs, market instability, and growing concerns about access and equity, the race for the state’s top insurance regulator is drawing increased attention.

Among the candidates is Steven Bradford, a veteran public servant with more than two decades of experience in government, including eight years in the State Senate and five years in the State Assembly.

Now, he is making his case to voters for why his background and perspective best position him for the role of California’s next insurance commissioner.

California Black Media (CBM) spoke with Bradford about his campaign experiences, key issues he plans to solve if elected, and his vision for the insurance commissioner role.

For readers who may not be familiar, what does the Insurance Commissioner do, and how would you use that role to address issues impacting communities in California?

The Insurance Commissioner is both a regulator and an administrator. The office oversees the entire insurance market—approving companies to operate, licensing agents and brokers, and reviewing rate increases or decreases.

This role is about oversight and action. The commissioner should be a watchdog, not a bystander, especially in a state like California, which has the third-largest insurance market in the world.

Last year, you shifted your campaign from running for lieutenant governor to the race for insurance commissioner. What spurred that decision?

Insurance impacts every part of people’s lives. You can’t buy a home without it—that contributes to the housing crisis. You can’t legally drive without it—that affects people’s ability to work. And businesses can’t operate without it.

For years, insurance has disproportionately impacted low-income communities and people of color. While everyone is feeling the strain now, those communities have long been hit hardest. That’s why it’s critical that insurance is not just available, but affordable.

What sets you apart from the other candidates in this race?

My record: 26 years of public service. I’ve shown up, stood up, and spoke up for Californians.

A recent Supreme Court decision impacting the Voting Rights Act has raised concerns about representation. What message do you have for voters in California regarding the importance of their vote?

It’s alarming. If people think this doesn’t affect them, they’re mistaken. There’s a real effort to roll back decades of progress and silence voters.

Your vote is your most powerful tool, and we have to use it—every election.

What are you hearing from voters as you campaign across the state?

Affordability and transparency.

People are struggling with rising costs, and many don’t fully understand what their insurance policies cover.

We saw that clearly in places like Altadena and the Palisades—people had insurance but were underinsured. They didn’t realize their coverage wouldn’t meet the cost to rebuild. That’s unacceptable.

We must acknowledge the inequities in the system. The FAIR Plan has roots in discrimination, and today we still see disparities based on ZIP code and income. We need a more competitive and equitable market where consumers have choices.