Decatur approves reparations task force, apologizes to Black residents
The Decatur City Commission unanimously adopted a resolution on Monday to create the Decatur Reparations Task Force.
The task force, which will have 11 members, will develop recommendations that will be presented in a final report in around three years.
The city also formally apologized for its role "in perpetuating discrimination, oppression, subjugation and the resulting harms, profiting from policies rooted in the system of white supremacy."
DECATUR, Ga. - The city of Decatur has taken a big step toward reparations for African-American residents who suffered historical discrimination in the area.
At a meeting on Monday, the Decatur City Commission unanimously adopted a resolution to create the Decatur Reparations Task Force to begin compiling records and develop policy recommendations.
The backstory
Last year, city leaders unanimously approved a contract with the Beacon Hill Black Alliance for Human Rights for reparations research work, which officials said helped to "uncover the legacy of racial harm in the City of Decatur."
In the time since the contact was authorized, officials say the group has held community gatherings and listening sessions to hear directly from residents of the Beacon Hill community.
In the new resolution, the city pointed to the area's history of slavery, segregation, redlining, and property seizures.
The resolution also pointed to Confederate monuments formerly located near the DeKalb County Courthouse and other parts of the city.
What we know
In the next 60 days, the city commission will appoint 11 members recommended by the Beacon Hill Black Alliance for Human Rights to take part in the task force. These members will include historians, legal experts, youth representatives, and more.
The group will then compile records of Black land and property loss, examine economic displacement and legalized discrimination, and interview descendants affected by the city's policies.
While doing the research, the task force will also begin developing recommendations on how to address the harm and "propose city-sponsored memorialization projects, economic equity tools, and investment strategies, and support community-based initiatives to address the racial disparities," the resolution says.
What they're saying
As part of the resolution, the city formally acknowledged its history.
"The City of Decatur formally acknowledges its past role in the systemic oppression of people of African descent through enslavement, human trafficking, convict-labor, discriminatory zoning and development, underinvestment in African American communities, school segregation, racially biased policing, the destruction of African American-owned property, businesses, and institutions and the displacement and erasure of the Beacon Hill community, people and culture," the resolution reads.
City officials also apologized for its role in enslaving, trafficking, and oppressing Black residents.
"The City extends a full and public apology to the Black residents of Decatur—past and present— and their descendants, for its role in perpetuating discrimination, oppression, subjugation and the resulting harms, profiting from policies rooted in the system of white supremacy."
Dig deeper
Decatur is not the only part of metro Atlanta examining reparations for some descendants of enslaved people.
In Fulton County, a Reparations Task Force has been working since the Fulton County Board of Commissioners approved a measure in 2023. That task force has temporarily paused meetings while members work on a report about the impact of slavery and Jim Crow laws on residents, but officials say meetings are expected to resume some time in 2025.
What's next
The task force will hold its first meeting within 60 days after seven to nine members of the group are confirmed.
It will then issue reports annually with the final report coming within three years.
The Source
Information for this story came from a resoution by the City of Decatur and previous FOX 5 reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
Scientific American
15 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
White House launches review of Smithsonian museums
White House officials are launching a review of some of the Smithsonian's museums aimed at ensuring 'alignment' with President Trump's 'directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.' A Tuesday letter to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch was signed by the Domestic Policy Council's Vince Haley, White House senior associate staff secretary Lindsey Halligan and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, the Wall Street Journal reported. The review outlined in the letter, Halligan told the paper, 'is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions.' A White House official confirmed the Wall Street Journal's report to ITK. Some of the review's focus will be on exhibits that are poised to be featured as part of next year's 250 th anniversary celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The letter instructed eight of the Smithsonian's museums — including the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of American History, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of the American Indian, among others — to replace exhibits that include 'divisive or ideologically driven' material with 'unifying, historically accurate' content, according to the news outlet. In March, Trump signed an executive order that accused the Smithsonian Institution of being influenced in 'recent years' by 'a divisive, race-centered ideology.' 'This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive,' the order said, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back former President Biden-era initiatives that promoted diversity, equity and inclusion. Last month, Halligan, one of the signers of the White House letter to Bunch, criticized an exhibit at the National Museum of American History, saying, 'American taxpayers should not be funding institutions that undermine our country or promote one-sided, divisive political narratives.' 'The Smithsonian Institution should present history in a way that is accurate, balanced, and consistent with the values that make the United States of America exceptional,' Halligan told Fox News Digital. The Smithsonian made headlines in recent weeks after its National Museum of American History removed an exhibit referencing Trump's two impeachments. The museum later said in a statement that the placard that contained information about Trump's impeachments would be restored after being ' updated in the coming weeks to reflect all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history.' 'We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit,' the statement said.
