Past Focus

The bedeviling social issues of our generation can be traced back in time to longstanding patterns of inequality, patriarchy, colonization, racism, and marginalization, which both enable and are deepened by exploitative relationships. If we accept that the roots of our present day social ills are historical, then we might say there are both pragmatic and moral obligations to redress past wrongs. Exploitation causes both distributive harm (when the more powerful party profits inappropriately) but also relational harm (because the exploiter has turned the exploitee's vulnerability to their own advantage). Pragmatically, we are unable to make progress on the issues of the day without attending to these harms in a spirit of remediation. Morally, remedial action is at the heart of justice.

Remedial action covers a wide range of financial, legal, psychological, political, and civic practices. Margaret Urban Walker, in her article “Making Reparations Possible: Theorizing Reparative Justice,” describes the diversity of reparations that emerged in the later 20th century -- first introduced by West Germany to individual survivors of the Holocaust, later to the victims of brutal military regimes in Chile and Argentina, and most recently, to Black residents of Evanston, Illinois whose families endured slavery, red-lining, and present-day housing segregation. While restitution and compensation play a critical function, there are other essential dimensions of reparations including actions that illuminate and dignify those who have endured injustice, and actions that mark a public commitment to structural reform so that the suffering is not repeated.

Walker writes:

For a group of white donors at Denver Foundation, several of whose intergenerational wealth could directly be traced back to the slave trade, reparations takes the form of hands-off granting to a council of Black leaders, acknowledgement, and public learning. By ceding control of granting decisions to a group of Black leaders, the donors are recognizing their positional power, while not letting themselves off the hook for further engagement. Through a learning and connecting series, donors can continue to "deepen their learning and their own personal racial equity journey." Through their granting and engagement, donors are opening themselves up to what Walker calls “the possibility of a relationship of accountability and reciprocity.” That possibility, she argues, is the fundamental task of reparations. In the Intergenerational Stories podcast, Denver Foundation's Chief Impact Officer, Dace West, defines reparations work:

Dace describes this group and their Black Resilience in Colorado Fund as "experiments" that they are running to learn more about the differences between a reparations and a charitable framework, and how to do reparative work. Many foundations can be risk averse when it comes to inviting donors to reflect on the source of their wealth and engage in a broader conversation that moves beyond celebration to learning opportunities that might involve discomfort. Denver Foundation is finding their way through the challenges with a brave action learning approach.

While not all funders can trace their wealth to specific wrongdoing, some funders like the Bush Foundation in Saint Paul, Minnesota, recognize their wealth to be a product of public policy which has long privileged White, wealthy folks. To try and close the racial wealth gap, they have issued $100 million in social impact bonds and allocated all of the proceeds to two trust funds: $50 million for Black people and $50 million for Native American people. They did this in response to a 2020 call to philanthropic foundations to give 10% of their assets to provide direct support to Native and Black people for wealth building activities. The money will be paid to individuals for developing their wealth - in ways like financing a college education, making a down payment on a house, or providing seed money to start a business. As of 2023, an additional $50 million has been allocated to systemic change initiatives focused more on public ritual and structural reform.

• 
  Undertaking deep historical research
• 
  Tracking & publicly acknowledging the sources of wealth
• 
  Creating partnerships with leaders of communities historically affected by discrimination
• 
  Issuing social impact bonds
• 
  Setting up financial reparations or trust funds

• 
  Redressing past wrongs:
  There are moral reasons to redress past wrongs but also pragmatic ones if we accept that today's social challenges are rooted in the past.
• 
  Exploitation causes two kinds of harm

  Distributive: The exploiter has wrongfully gained at others' expense; and 2. Relational: the exploiter has taken advantage of others' vulnerability, damaging trust and respect.
• 
  Reparations demonstrate relations of accountability: According to Margaret Urban Walker, while a reparations process should seek to demonstrate relations of accountability and reciprocity.
• 
  To move forward, not back: The point is not restoring the status quo from before the wrong occurred, but affirming a new baseline for moral and political engagement going forward.
• 
  A Learning Process While there are some principles for reparations work, we can't know what will have the impact we seek before trying. It takes courage to learn through action.

Experiences & Observations

Thinking of a foundation you are close to, what have you observed about the boundaries that exist around what kind of conversations can be had, with which stakeholders, about the origins of wealth (general or particular), and connections between past harms and present social challenges.

Reactions & Impressions

What is your comfort level talking about the origins of wealth and how does that change with context and audience? What are some of the emotions that arise when you think about engaging donors and grantees in drawing connections between past and present, wealth inequalities and exploitation?

Questions & Hunches to test

How might you begin to experiment on a small scale to learn more about different stakeholders' willingness to engage in conversations about the relationship between the past and the present?