Evanston, Illinois, made history in 2021 by implementing the nation’s first race-based redress plan for past housing discrimination against Black residents. Since the program’s inception, the city has made approximately 40 payments to qualified residents each year. Last year** the city** issued 45. This time the number is 44, for a total of about $4 million. But no matter how many checks Evanston sends out, the effect will be merely symbolic at best. At worst it’s muddled, confused and probably illegal.
This year, Evanston will send $25,000 payments to 44 Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969. The program, funded primarily through a real estate transfer tax, is intended to address the legacy of housing discrimination in Evanston — a city that, like much of the nation, imposed restrictive covenants and other barriers that kept Black residents from purchasing homes. While the plan is rooted in a desire to right past wrongs, it raises significant constitutional, practical and moral concerns.
At its core, the Evanston program is race-specific and benefits only Black residents who meet narrow historical criteria. This raises an obvious legal question: Can the government hand out money based on race? Critics have already identified the program as constitutionally questionable under the Equal ProtectionEqual Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Beyond legality, there is a broader question about fairness. The program compensates some individuals while excluding others who may be in equal or even greater financial need. Wealthier Black residents of Evanston receive the same payments as those who are struggling economically, while low-income residents of other races receive nothing. Doesn’t a poor white person need that money anymore?
ILLINOIS CITY DISTRIBUTES $25K CASH PAYMENTS TO 44 BLACK RESIDENTS THROUGH REPAIR PROGRAM
The structure of the program is also confused. Although Evanston’s payments are based on historic housing discrimination between 1919 and 1969, this period does not capture the full scope of systemic racial inequality. Restrictive housing practices existed both before and after that period. Yet the city has drawn an arbitrary line, simplifying a complex history into one snapshot. It may be administratively convenient, but it is not particularly well thought out.
A $25,000 payment may provide temporary relief for some recipients, but investments in education, financial literacy and other community-building initiatives could yield longer-term benefits. These types of investments would be better than providing short-term individual relief.
None of this is to say that recovery programs are inherently bad. The government has previously compensated groups that had suffered demonstrable, direct injustice — Japanese Americans interned during World War II, for example.
SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS WORK TOGETHER TO SHUT DOWN THE RECOVERY FUND, CLAIMING IT’S ‘DIVIDING’ THE CITY
Evanston’s payouts, on the other hand, go to those who merely lived in the city at the time the discrimination occurred, regardless of whether they suffered personally. And while past discrimination may have created obstacles to wealth accumulation, it also appears that many Black Americans have achieved upward mobility through their own efforts. The fact that 80 percent of black Americans are middle class or higher weakens this point considerably. And what does it mean that black Americans like my parents achieved upward mobility without such help?
Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the Evanston, Illinois, recovery program for using race as a requirement for program eligibility. The program provides direct cash payments of $25,000 to Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969. Evanston was the first city in the country to adopt a recovery plan, committing $10 million to Black residents over 10 years. (Getty Images)
What about the fact that getting equal opportunity – and not simply an amount of money – was all they needed to give themselves and their children a better life?
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
A $25,000 payment may provide temporary relief for some recipients, but investments in education, financial literacy and other community-building initiatives can yield long-term benefits. These types of investments would be better than providing short-term individual relief.
Also from a moral perspective, the idea of placing a monetary value on past suffering is inherently offensive. No amount of money can undo decades of damage caused by segregation. Reparations appear performative when closely aligned with cash payments. This reparations program, and the idea of reparations in general, ignores the reality of contemporary America, where socioeconomic status—regardless of race—is the most salient issue.
Ultimately, Evanston’s reparations program highlights a tension between historical justice and practical policy. On the one hand, it is a serious attempt to confront the city’s past.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
On the other hand, its design – race-specific, administratively limited and money-oriented – raises legal, moral and strategic concerns. A more comprehensive approach could focus on opportunity rather than compensation, addressing systemic inequality with policies that increase access to quality education, affordable housing and economic development. By investing in structures that strengthen communities in the long term, cities can confront historical injustices in ways that are more just, sustainable, and legally defensible.
Evanston’s reparations program may be a sincere gesture, but it is a misguided idea based on racial essentialism — the idea that all black people are the same — a waste of resources because the money could be put to better use, and certainly morally questionable. The individual beneficiaries may be happier, but the long-term effects of this program could do more harm than good.
