Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter, Dayvon Love, Nkechi Taifa: California AB 7, Reparations, and Truth and Repair

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/09

Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter is a professor at UCLA holding the Scott Waugh Endowed Chair in the Social Sciences, with appointments in Sociology and African American Studies. He served as the inaugural chair of UCLA’s African American Studies department and previously was President of the Association of Black Sociologists. Hunter is a co-author of Chocolate Cities: The Black Map of American Life, which examines Black urban formation and the geographies of power, and author of Radical Reparations: Healing the Soul of a Nation. 

Dayvon Love is a Baltimore-based community organizer, public intellectual, and reparations advocate who directs public policy efforts at Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle. He frames reparations within the Pan-African and Black nationalist traditions, emphasizing community control, institution-building, and resisting the elite capture of reparative resources. 

Nkechi Taifa is a civil and human rights attorney, scholar-activist, and longtime leader in the reparations movement. She is President & CEO of The Taifa Group, LLC and Executive Director of the Reparation Education Project. Taifa is a founding member of N’COBRA, an inaugural commissioner of the National African American Reparations Commission (NAARC), and formerly Advocacy Director for Criminal Justice at the Open Society Foundations. She has served on the DC Commission on Human Rights, chaired that body (2007–2014), sits on the Corrections Information Council, and has testified before Congress and numerous justice bodies. 

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Hunter, Love, and Taifa explore reparations through policy, history, and practice. Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter explains AB 7 authorizes lineage-based admissions preferences, not mandates. Dayvon Love stresses community control and sovereignty over elite-only deals. Nkechi Taifa outlines multifaceted remedies (nationhood, culture, education, health, trauma, wealth) and corrects misconceptions about individual payouts and present-day responsibility. The panel highlights misunderstandings, the role of faith communities in repentance and advocacy, and the importance of truth paired with repair. International reference points—CARICOM’s Ten-Point Plan and South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission—inform U.S. choices. Despite political headwinds, organizers urge unapologetic, sustained action and measurable programs that build Black collective power.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the current context for AB 7 and its nuances?

Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter: AB 7 gives California colleges and universities lawful room to consider an admissions preference for descendants of U.S. slavery. The intent is not only to acknowledge that history but to recognize what these students may contribute as incoming undergraduates, thereby enriching the educational environment for everyone. AB 7 authorizes lineage-based preference; it does not mandate it.

Jacobsen: Regarding reducing elite-only negotiations and ensuring more community control over discussions about reparations—what mechanisms might help?

Dayvon Love: It is essential to set context. The demand for reparations emerges from traditions rooted in revolutionary Pan-Africanist and Black nationalist worldviews. People often confuse economic inclusion with sovereignty and reparations; the latter grows from a worldview that recognizes Black societies predate 500 years of European domination and sustained institutions that preserved life and stability.

So for me, community control is key. While good policy includes access to higher education and social programs, reparations at their root are about investing in Black people’s capacity to manage, operate, and control their own institutions. The institutions that secure quality of life must remain central so benefits reach the many, not just a few elites.

Jacobsen: From a civil and human-rights perspective—and based on your prior successes—what strategic steps help states innovate without wasting time or repeating mistakes?

Nkechi Taifa: By “previous successes,” I point to the half-century of reparations work that helped bring the movement from the margins to the mainstream. We now see state and local reparations commissions across the country, as well as academic and faith institutions engaging with questions of right and necessity. California was the first state to establish a reparations task force by statute (AB 3121), which delivered comprehensive recommendations to the Legislature—an achievement that should have been federal first, but the state acted.

Momentum will continue from these state and local efforts, and we expect the federal government to join in eventually. We should view the glass as half full: California’s progress, Evanston’s implementation, and commissions in places like New York and Illinois are genuine reasons for optimism—even in challenging political times. Academic and religious institutions are also confronting their own histories. These developments, despite the presence of political headwinds, give cause for celebration.

Jacobsen: What would an ideal, generalized definition and outcome of reparations look like—culturally, educationally, legally, and psychologically—for those dealing with intergenerational trauma?

Taifa: My mantra has always been this: the harms from enslavement and its aftermath were multifaceted, and so the remedies must be multifaceted as well. Reparations can take many forms, tailored to equitably address the wide range of injuries sustained as a result of slavery and its legacies.

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA), more than 35 years ago, outlined five primary areas of injury:

Nationhood and sovereignty: The denial of self-determination and sovereignty that Dayvon mentioned earlier.

Culture and identity: The destruction of African culture and the denial of identity.

Education: The denial of the right to education during slavery, where teaching an enslaved person to read or write was a crime, sometimes punishable by death.

Health: Systematic inequities, including torturous health experiments and the degradation of health that continues to this day.

Psychological trauma: What we now call post-traumatic slave syndrome, including epigenetic inheritance of trauma that runs through generations.

Another area of injury is the racial wealth gap created during enslavement and sustained through Black Codes, Jim Crow, apartheid laws, ongoing discrimination in employment and housing, and the criminal punishment system. Enslavement created a dual system of punishment that persists to this day. Remedies must address all of these areas of injury.

With respect to a settlement—I say settlement because no amount of monetary recompense can ever atone for the incalculable injuries sustained by the descendants of African people enslaved in the United States.

Jacobsen: Marcus and Dayvon, would you like to add anything?

Hunter: Yes, certainly. I echo everything the legend Nkechi just said. What I would emphasize is that reparations already have an existing definition. The key question is: reparations for what? In this case, it is reparations for slavery in America, and for all the harms and injuries it inflicted both on the nation as a whole and especially on those who were enslaved and their descendants.

The goal is to craft something comprehensive, potentially ongoing in perpetuity, until such time that the systems and inequities generated by slavery no longer exist.

Jacobsen: Dayvon, would you like to weigh in?

Love: They said it well. 

Jacobsen: Misunderstandings and disinformation about reparations exist on a spectrum. On one end, some deliberately spread falsehoods for political purposes. On the other hand, some people misunderstand.

Hunter: A significant category of misunderstanding is the belief that reparations mean individual payments. People often imagine Johnny Smith paying money out of his own pocket to Keisha Jackson. That is wildly inaccurate. 

The etymology of reparations is “a state of repair.” Reparations are a claim against governments—federal, state, county, municipal—that legalized, sanctioned, and authorized the dehumanization and enslavement of African people without compensation for their labour. It is not a matter of individual blame.

Jacobsen: Dayvon and Nkechi, do you have any final thoughts on misunderstandings?

Love: Yes. One central point is that most people are unaware of the mechanics of slavery itself: 246 years of enslaved Africans providing free labour, alongside the genocide of Indigenous peoples, form the foundation of what is now the United States.

That is the basis for America’s position as a global superpower. All the comforts enjoyed today in the United States are predicated on the suffering of colonized peoples, both here and abroad.

So, when people see America as a generally just nation that made “mistakes” in the past, it becomes difficult for them to understand why reparations are a just and necessary demand. That is why framing the issue historically and structurally is so essential.

I would argue the most crucial point is that the current material and historical situation of the United States is predicated on the misery, plunder, theft, and dehumanization of people of African descent. If we begin with that truth, the demand for reparations makes far more sense.

The second point I’d add, in terms of intentional misunderstanding, is this: some people believe the purpose of reparations is to get white Americans to understand the oppression of Black people. That’s a misconception. The fundamental theory of change is about people of African descent and other communities of colour building collective political power—federally, as well as at state and local levels. Wherever Black communities have the political potential, reparations should be put on the table and pursued. Building this power is essential to sustaining momentum.

Taifa: Another misconception is the argument that people alive today should not be responsible for paying reparations for harms they did not personally commit, or that their ancestors may not have even been present for. My response is that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Although today’s white Americans may not have committed the original crimes, many occupy privileged positions because of them and continue to benefit from a society steeped in white supremacy. There is no statute of limitations on human rights violations.

To clarify this, I often cite the example of Japanese American reparations. When the U.S. government paid reparations in 1988 to survivors of internment during World War II, my tax dollars contributed to those payments. I had nothing to do with Japanese internment, but the debt existed, and it had to be paid. In the same way, the debt of slavery remains.

Finally, another misconception is that reparations are only about money—a simple check. That is not the case. Reparations must be comprehensive. A settlement can take many forms, addressing the countless injuries sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing legacies.

Jacobsen: In American history, faith communities have played a complex role in relation to African American communities. On the one hand, churches served as spaces of refuge and centers for civil rights organizing. On the other hand, theology was historically used to justify slavery. Given this history, what role can faith communities play in advancing reparations today?

Hunter: Faith communities are essential. Christian missionaries were not only colonizers but also architects of a distorted Christianity that sanctioned slavery. As a result, there is a need for repentance within faith traditions. Faith leaders have a responsibility to participate in the process of repair, which encompasses spiritual restoration alongside material and structural changes.

Religion—and Christianity in particular—was weaponized to dehumanize African people and justify slavery. Because of this, there must be a practice of repentance among faith leaders. They should not only preach about reparations in their pews and pulpits but also advocate publicly in leadership spaces.

Taifa: Faith communities were not only complicit but, in many cases, progenitors of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. I prefer not to use that term, but it carries that connotation. From papal edicts in the 15th century onward, religious authorities provided theological justification for enslavement. Today, some institutions are beginning to acknowledge their roles. For example, the Jesuits sold 272 enslaved people to Louisiana to keep Georgetown University from bankruptcy; they have since engaged in reparatory dialogue with descendants. The Virginia Theological Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary have committed to reparations programs. Episcopal dioceses and other denominations have also pledged funds as moral statements recognizing the church’s complicity.

Love: On the other hand, Black churches and other Black faith traditions have historically served as centers of political advocacy and organizing. These institutions must prioritize reparations at the center of their political engagement, activating and mobilizing congregations. This spiritual and organizational energy will remain essential fuel for building the political power needed to advance reparations nationwide.

Jacobsen: Another practical issue is that people already juggle family responsibilities—taking children to school, dentist appointments, doctor appointments, and managing their own needs. That leaves limited time and energy. How do you sustain momentum for reparations when community members face these daily constraints?

Taifa: Sorry, I am almost laughing. My history in the reparations movement has been one of working full-time jobs and then doing this organizing work after hours, late into the night. There were no foundations or grants in those days. We did what had to be done.

It reminds me of the period after slavery, when mutual aid societies were the grassroots infrastructure for Black survival and advancement. They organized and mobilized without institutional support.

Today, we actually have more resources and more access to information. But at the same time, we face new challenges. Efforts to ban books and restrict the accurate teaching of history make our work harder. While information is available like never before, there are powerful attempts to erase it. That makes it even more urgent to push reparations from the margins into the mainstream, where they belong.

Love: Grounding conversations about reparations in the actual work that communities are doing is a great way to raise consciousness beyond traditional political advocacy spaces. For example, here in Baltimore, we’ve been working on a variety of reparations initiatives, including a bill at the state level that would have established a commission to study how to implement reparations policy in Maryland. The Legislative Black Caucus championed that bill, but the governor unfortunately vetoed it. Work is now underway to override the veto.

The conversations that emerged from this process have been very valuable. Because the Legislative Black Caucus was leading the effort, and the governor involved was Black, it sparked debates among people who might not otherwise have engaged. Suddenly, Marylanders with a wide range of opinions were talking seriously about reparations. This demonstrates how grounding conversations in ongoing political work creates new opportunities for education and dialogue.

Hunter: I agree with Dayvon and Nkechi. One of the key observations we’ve made is that the more people are educated about reparations, the more they support the idea. Much of the resistance stems from a lack of education or being misinformed by distorted narratives and deliberate disinformation. Anything that we do that increases real knowledge and cuts through confusion is a net positive.

Jacobsen: What are some distinct examples where proper education on reparations has punctured mainstream media channels?

Taifa: Let me give a personal example that came to mind immediately. Years ago, the Hollywood film “Rosewood” was released. It depicted the desecration and massacre of the Black community of Rosewood, Florida—a history I knew nothing about at the time. After that film, reparative efforts were made for the descendants of the massacre. For me, it showed how popular media can serve as a powerful educational tool about abuses in the not-so-distant past.

Hunter: I would also add a few cultural touchpoints. The HBO series Watchmen, with Regina King, dramatized the Tulsa massacre and wove in themes of reparations, even showing genealogical testing to determine eligibility. That brought the issue into popular consciousness in a striking way.

Another important example is the campaign to return Bruce’s Beach in Manhattan Beach, California, to the descendants of the Black family from whom it was taken. That case helped people understand that reparations aren’t just about something in the distant past. They apply to very real instances in which Black families were deprived of land, wealth, and opportunities within living memory. Once the community learned the history, they strongly supported returning the property.

Love: Yes, those are good examples of how pop culture has provided some inroads for raising consciousness. That said, I remain generally suspicious of pop culture as a vehicle for real advocacy. I have low expectations for how much pop culture alone can raise consciousness in a way that is actionable on an issue as complex as reparations.

As Nkechi said, the work that she and many others have done in the reparations movement over the decades has built the strong foundation we stand on today. That grassroots, community-based engagement has created momentum. Pop culture can supplement that, but it cannot replace movement work. Advocacy grounded in communities will always be the priority.

Jacobsen: Building on your point about skepticism of pop culture—what are some times or areas where pop culture presents a sympathetic viewpoint but does so inaccurately? That could be both helpful and damaging.

Love: Yes, one clear example is Black Panther. It has become a massively popular franchise, presenting some positive concepts. But it also sets up a false dichotomy. The binary between Killmonger and T’Challa frames the struggle in problematic ways: one side represents sovereignty and self-determination, but is disconnected from the masses, while the other side advocates for integrationist leadership.

That binary has reinforced divisions within the African diaspora and influenced some groups like ADOS (American Descendants of Slavery) and FBA (Foundational Black Americans) to see reparations through a narrow, us-versus-them lens. It has exacerbated disunity at times. That doesn’t make Black Panther a bad film, but it shows how pop culture can shape conversations in ways that are not entirely helpful for reparations advocacy.

Taifa: Comedians have sometimes made light of reparations, thereby trivializing the issue. That hasn’t been particularly helpful either. But there are positive cultural interventions. For example, FirstRepair recently collaborated with hip hop artists to create an entire album of reparations-themed music.

Additionally, actress Erica Alexander and her company, Colour Farm Media, produced the film “The Big Payback.” It followed Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee as she championed the federal reparations bill, H.R. 40, alongside Robin Rue Simmons, who pioneered the Evanston, Illinois, reparations plan. That film made the issue accessible and engaging for a wider audience.

Hunter: Yes, I would like to offer my agreement with both Dayvon and Nkechi, and I’ll expand on that. Pop culture has not done enough. We don’t yet have a critical mass of examples to point to and say: here’s where artists and creators leaned into reparations in a way that parallels how they’ve leaned into police murders or police brutality. Those have become major cultural touchpoints, but they have not been explicitly tied back to reparative justice.

For example, the phrase “Black Lives Matter” became primarily associated with police violence, without being anchored in reparations. That disconnect shows we need far more representation in music, film, and media that ties these struggles together. We need artists across mediums to intentionally connect reparations to the American origin story, because reparations are not a separate issue—it is central to the very fabric of the nation’s history.

Jacobsen: What about under the rapid and often chaotic policy shifts we’ve seen—first under Trump, now under the second Trump administration? How does this outlook present itself for broader reparations efforts in the next three or so years?

Hunter: This current administration is a reminder: you can’t go silent just because your so-called friends are in power. You have to push, regardless of who holds office. If Democrats had shown a genuine appetite to act, we would already be discussing a federal commission report on reparations. But there was resistance and reluctance, even when they controlled all three branches of government.

In this context, we need an unapologetic stance—no compromise, no negotiation. Craft demands that are strong, anticipate resistance, and refuse to be watered down for political palatability. 

Taifa: I agree 100 percent with Dr. Hunter: now is the time to advance full force. Our claim is just. It is not imaginary—it’s historical, and it must happen here. What’s striking is that reparations have already been proposed for other groups. The current administration supported reparations for families of January 6 insurrectionists and reparations for certain immigrant groups fleeing apartheid systems abroad. But when it comes to Black Americans, descendants of enslaved Africans, reparative justice is treated as controversial. That double standard must be confronted.

Love: Yes. Trump represents the heart of what America has long been—an expression of white nationalism, centred on maintaining white control of institutions necessary for meeting basic needs. Too often, approaches to reparations and other Black issues have been framed as appeals to the humanity of those in power, assuming they care about justice. Trump’s election reaffirmed what I already knew: we cannot rely on that appeal.

As Nkechi has said, we must be clear that no one is coming to save us. We have to organize ourselves from a position of strength and power—not trying to appeal to Trump and the Republicans, or even to a Democratic Party that has avoided or watered down this issue. We must remain strong in our advocacy for our community despite living in a society hostile to the humanity of people of African descent.

We are living in challenging times, but we must view these challenges as a mandate to redouble our efforts. I have said before that hope itself is revolutionary, and we must not allow despair to take root.

Taifa: The lesson from this administration is that our communities are watching. Our consistency and our courage are what matter. When rights are under siege, the demand for reparations becomes even more urgent. We must not shift away—we will not shift away. What we are doing is recommitting ourselves to the mission.

Jacobsen: The UN General Assembly’s 80th session just wrapped up. The International Universal Human Rights Framework serves as a crucial reference point when examining these issues. For international reparations efforts, what about the Caribbean? What about the case of South Africa? How can those inform current efforts in the United States and beyond?

Taifa: With respect to the Caribbean, CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—instituted a Ten-Point Plan for reparatory justice around 2014–2015. Many of us in the United States agree with that framework 100 percent. They are organizing, mobilizing, and calling upon their European colonizers to make amends. The South African model was different. It was a truth and reconciliation model.

Hunter: Yes, what Nkechi is getting at in the South African case is essential. One thing that has been central to our position in the United States is this: we don’t want truth without repair, which is what South Africa essentially had. But we also don’t want to repair without truth. In the U.S., there have been preliminary efforts to establish a truth commission. The idea is to make sure truth and repair go hand in hand.

Another key point is international standards. The UN framework defines restitution as returning the person to the condition they were in before the harm or injury occurred. In the U.S. context, that is impossible. We can’t put the descendants of enslaved Africans back in their villages in Nigeria, Ghana, or Benin.

However, what we can do is acknowledge that this displacement occurred and provide remedies that help communities move forward whole. That’s why some international reparations models—such as those applied in Rwanda or Germany—don’t map neatly onto the U.S. case. We’re dealing with an involuntarily displaced population that cannot be “returned” in the continental sense.

There’s also a complicating factor: some descendants of Africans enslaved in America raise claims not only against the U.S. government but also against certain West African states that participated in the capture and sale of their ancestors.

Love: I would add something relevant when looking at South Africa. A significant controversy in recent years has been the policy debate over land expropriation without compensation. That was spearheaded by the Economic Freedom Fighters, a radical left-wing Pan-Africanist party outside of the ruling coalition. It demonstrates how the question of reparations remains a contested issue, even in societies that have formally addressed the problems of truth and reconciliation.

Many of the Economic Freedom Fighters were originally members of the ANC, Nelson Mandela’s party. They splintered off because they felt the ANC was not strong or radical enough on repairing the damage caused by colonialism and apartheid. One of the key policy debates was the issue of land expropriation without compensation.

About 80–85 percent of the land in South Africa is still owned by white South Africans. The EFF pushed for a policy that would allow the state to seize land and redistribute it to those from whom it had been taken. That was highly controversial, to the point where even Donald Trump threatened sanctions against South Africa.

Many in the West framed it as an attack on the principle of private property rights—arguments that often come up when people resist reparations more broadly. The policy did move forward, though not in as strong a form as the EFF wanted. Still, it serves as an essential example. As Brother Hunter mentioned, South Africa had reconciliation without repair. Whenever movements push for real repair that shifts power, the level of resistance is enormous. That pattern is consistent across contexts and is instructive for how we think about reparations in the United States.

Jacobsen: Do you have final wrap-up thoughts or quotes that best represent your views on this topic?

Hunter: Yes. One quote that has stayed with me comes from Benin, and I’ve shared it often in gatherings. People say that slaves were taken from Africa. This is not true. People were taken from Africa and then made into slaves. That distinction is fundamental. Our advocacy is about reminding the world of the humanity that was stolen, and repairing the story of human beings, not just “slaves.” This work is about restoring people to wholeness.

Love: I’ll close with a practical note. Earlier, I mentioned the work we’re doing in Maryland to establish a reparations commission to study and implement policy. I want to urge everyone listening—if you have connections in Maryland, please reach out to your legislators. The General Assembly reconvenes in January 2026, and one of the first issues on the table will be overriding the governor’s veto of the bill.

Please continue to support the work, both in Maryland and across the country, where so many are engaged in advancing reparations. For those who want to get involved, more information is available through Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle in Baltimore, which is coordinating efforts to secure this veto override.

Taifa: I would say that reparations can be a vehicle for transformative change. In fact, reparations may be the only policy capable of comprehensively addressing the crux of racism and inequity—the harms caused by government and related policies from the enslavement era that still manifest today in nearly every aspect of life. From health and wealth inequities to educational disparities, cultural deprivation, and mass incarceration, reparations are uniquely positioned to provide redress.

It’s a new day, with new energy and new possibilities. The fruits we see today grew from seeds planted and nurtured by generations before us. Reparations are no longer an abstract idea or an unreachable dream. They are increasingly a tangible reality—achievable in our lifetime.

Jacobsen: Thank you, everyone, for your time and for sharing your expertise today. It was a privilege to hear your insights.

Hunter: Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Love: Thank you all for being here. I hope you have a great weekend.

Taifa: Yes, thank you. Take care, everyone.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.