By Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter
As we still mourn the passing of the oldest known survivor of the Tulsa Race Massacre, Mother Viola Fletcher, Washington state’s handling of its reparations study shows the fragile line between meaningful repair and performative equity. Mother Fletcher did not live to see meaningful redress for the horror she survived, but she left us with the moral clarity and resolve to carry forward her legacy of relentless pursuit of justice. We can honor her life by pushing for reparations, but it should be handled with care and integrity. Anything less would be a performance.
Earlier this year, the Washington State Department of Commerce issued a request for proposals for a statewide reparations study. As the third statewide reparations study in the nation, Washington’s approach will shape how comparable initiatives are undertaken elsewhere. Initially, the project was estimated to cost between $250,000 and $300,000. However, as the scope evolved, it became clear that the budget could extend up to $1 million. This demonstrates the project’s ambition and significance.
(Photo courtesy of the UCLA Department of African American Studies)
I submitted a proposal but received no confirmation that it was received. Weeks later, I learned it had been quarantined; evaluation proceeded without it. When the winning bidder was announced, I requested a debrief—something meant to guarantee public decisions are fair and transparent. The department claimed the request was untimely, asserting that appeals must be made within three days of notification. I asked again, pointing to state procurement rules saying that the appeal window begins after public announcement, not private notice. Request denied. I had to hire a lawyer just to receive a debrief, and even then, it withheld answers to procedural concerns.
The selected organization for the study reportedly submitted materials outside of the official platform. This bypassed the safeguards designed to ensure oversight, including review by the chief equity officer. This organization also focuses primarily on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While DEI work is absolutely necessary, it is not a substitute for reparations. The work of reparations requires deep understanding of historical harm, intergenerational dispossession and structural repair—not general frameworks of inclusion. As a scholar, I’ve spent years researching, teaching and advising reparations task forces across the country. A proposal including William “Sandy” Darity, a distinguished economist and leading national authority on reparations, was also rejected. When someone of that caliber is sidelined, it signals a deep institutional failure.
Essentially, Washington state has decided that DEI is the same as Black. Whoever is selected to do this study should have historical knowledge and methodological rigor, and it should be led by descendants of formerly enslaved people. When those elements are ignored, even well-intended efforts risk undercutting the very justice they claim to pursue.
To be clear: this is not about sour grapes, nor is it an attack on the organization chosen to conduct the study. The concern is whether the public systems stewarding this effort act fairly, transparently, and in ways worthy of community trust. Process failures matter deeply in reparative justice work. Reparations lose credibility if the process repeats the exclusions it is meant to correct.
I raise these concerns publicly only after using every institutional channel available. Reparations require both strategy and stewardship. The ability for the public to see, ask, and challenge is part of the repair.
Policymakers in Washington have the opportunity to set a precedent by implementing a transparent process from the outset. They can establish leadership by ensuring frequent public updates and engaging dialogues with community leaders and experts throughout the process. By championing an inclusive approach that truly values the input of those most affected, policymakers can fortify national standards for reparative justice initiatives.
Washington state is not alone at this moment. Across the country, Black Americans who have carried the moral weight of reparations are grappling with how to approach it amid political pressure and public scrutiny. This study is important not only for the people of Washington, but to descendants of formerly enslaved people in every city, county, and state. How the state handles this endeavor will signal whether reparations are approached as a moral obligation or a performative gesture.
Reparations are policy, process, and praxis. Therefore, repair cannot be delivered in outcomes if they are not practiced in the process. History will judge us accordingly. I have learned that denials are a powerful reminder to resist polite silence. Reparations, like that Mother Fletcher ascended from this Earth without, must be structural and transformative, not symbolic and performative.
As I move forward, I am encouraged and inspired by Nia—a Kwanzaa principle rooted in community building and restoration. This season, let us all practice Nia. Reparations is more than a policy agenda; it is a moral horizon. If reparations are to be realized, they must honor the spirit of justice, transparency and respect that makes repair possible.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the AFRO.