Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s recent veto of legislation that would have created a commission to study reparations was more than a routine exercise of political discretion. It was a failure of moral leadership.
As someone who has advised federal, state, and local agencies across the country in economic development, I recognize the complexities of governance. But leadership demands more than complexity management. It demands courage.
The proposed commission wouldn’t have authorized payments. It would have simply studied the long arc of economic exclusion and racial harm in Maryland — and explored policy responses grounded in that history. If we can study broadband, infrastructure, or water systems, we can certainly study the cumulative impact of slavery and state-sanctioned racism. Even if direct payment isn’t the outcome, justice requires we understand the full cost of the harm. The idea that even that step was too much to pursue is troubling.
Before we examine Gov. Moore’s rationale, we must clarify a deeper issue: Many of the racial equity initiatives currently prioritized by state and local governments are forward-looking — aimed at stopping future harm. But reparations are about addressing past harm. The legacy of slavery, forced breeding, Jim Crow segregation, housing discrimination, underfunded HBCUs and decades of police violence require targeted, historically grounded solutions.
Your opinion matters
Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at [email protected].
We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates.
Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines.
Views of writers are their own.
Maryland’s history also includes the ongoing desecration of Black cemeteries, such as Moses African Cemetery, where community advocates continue to fight for dignity in death. A study commission is a basic and necessary first step in reckoning with this history.
Moore cited these main reasons for his veto:
Black representation. Moore suggested that strong Black leadership in government is itself progress. But representation is not redress. Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, referencing her own family’s role in Brown v. Board of Education, reminded us that symbolic milestones don’t erase structural injustice.
Duplication of equity efforts. Moore argued a commission would duplicate other equity initiatives. But studying reparations is not a distraction — it is a policy tool. We can and should applaud policies that expand opportunity. But we must also demand remedies that repair past harm. The two are not mutually exclusive — they are morally co-dependent.
Bad timing. Moore suggested the political climate wasn’t right. But leadership means shaping moments, not waiting for them. Cities like Evanston, Illinois, and states like California have shown the value of bold, principled action.
Policy substitutes. Moore pointed to his economic mobility, housing, and education policies. These are important, but they are not reparations. They don’t redress generational theft of Black wealth through redlining, displacement or the underfunding of HBCUs. Nor do they address the destruction of cultural assets like Black cemeteries or health disparities from underfunded hospitals. These initiatives look to the future. Reparations confront the past.
Past commissions. Moore cited previous commissions — like the Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission — as grounds to reject the new bill. But those commissions were limited in scope. They did not calculate cumulative economic harm or propose direct redress. The deep racial wealth disparities that persist today — such as the fact that the median Black household in Maryland holds just 12 cents of wealth for every dollar held by white households, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research — are not accidental. This wealth gap is not an abstract inequity; it is the measurable result of government-sanctioned dispossession, from slavery and redlining to exclusion from labor protections and unequal access to capital.
Reparations are not about closing general equity gaps — they are about confronting and repairing the specific harm caused by government policy over generations.
The Maryland General Assembly should reconsider this bill. Communities across the state deserve a formal, statewide commission with the authority and mandate to propose structural redress.
Moore’s rise is inseparable from the history he just sidelined. By vetoing the commission, he signaled that symbolic progress is enough. But real leadership confronts history — and builds a future from its lessons. We need leaders who choose transparency over optics and courage over convenience.