Rather than reparations, address historical injustices by prioritizing immediate needs and curing inequities 

By Marc King

The Maryland legislature on Tuesday overrode Gov. Wes Moore veto of a bill to study reparations to descendants of enslaved people in Maryland. The country’s only Black governor was right to veto the bill. 

Paying for a study on reparations in Maryland, especially in the context of a projected $1.4 billion shortfall in the 2026 state budget, raises several critical concerns. While the concept of reparations is grounded in addressing historical injustices, the financial implications of such a study in a time of significant fiscal deficit warrant careful examination.

First there is fiscal responsibility. Maryland’s budget shortfall indicates a pressing need for fiscal prudence. Allocating funds for a study on reparations diverts resources away from essential services such as education, healthcare, and public safety. With limited financial resources, prioritizing a study over immediate needs can exacerbate existing issues, leading to further deterioration in public services that directly impact the lives of Maryland residents.

Next, there are opportunity costs. Every dollar spent on a study for reparations is a dollar that cannot be used elsewhere. Given the state’s financial constraints, funds could be better utilized to address urgent needs, such as infrastructure repairs, homelessness, and mental health services. These areas require immediate attention and investment to enhance the quality of life for all Marylanders, particularly those in underserved communities.

Let us not forget political divisions. The topic of reparations is inherently divisive, stirring strong emotions across political and social lines. Investing in a study may ignite further polarization among constituents, detracting from vital discussions about unity and collaborative solutions to systemic inequities. In a time of fiscal crisis, fostering social cohesion should take precedence over potentially contentious studies that might deepen existing divides.

The effectiveness and methodology of reparations discussions remain highly debated. A study may yield recommendations that are impractical or infeasible, leading to frustration among advocates and opponents alike. Without a clear path to actionable solutions, the investment in such a study could become a wasted expenditure of state funds, leading to public dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the government.

While the legacy of slavery and systemic racism is undeniable, the debate surrounding reparations often overlooks contemporary issues affecting marginalized communities. Instead of focusing on reparations, resources could be directed towards policies that promote economic mobility, educational opportunities, and community development. Addressing current disparities may provide more immediate benefits to those impacted by historical injustices.

So, rather than funding a study on reparations, the Maryland legislature and governor could consider alternative approaches that directly support affected communities. For instance, targeted investment in education, job training programs, and affordable housing initiatives can create tangible opportunities for upward mobility. These initiatives could effectively address the lingering effects of historical injustices without the complexities and potential pitfalls associated with reparations.

Finally, while the conversation around reparations is crucial, pursuing a study amidst a significant budget shortfall may not be the most prudent course of action for Maryland. Prioritizing immediate needs and fostering unity through actionable community support can create a more equitable future, addressing both historical injustices and present-day challenges effectively.