“Dereliction of Duty; The 30 year tenure of N’COBRA” by Kofi Changamire

In its 30 year reign NCOBRA has been an organization that has operated ineffectively as a reparations organization, proving itself incapable of advocating for reparations or even the facilitation of the National conversation on reparations. My reasons for this assertion stem from several things, 1.The group’s excessive use of contradictory language, terms and concepts in legislative and legal documents, memorandums. 2. Its inability to define what reparations is and who it should go to and its refusal to specify Native Black Americans as a distinct ethnic group separate from other groups of black people and 3. Its ultimate actions that have been detrimental to the pursuit of a justice claim by the victims of American chattel slavery and Jim Crow. The organization, either dormant or negligent for the majority of its 30 year history only came out of hiding to oppose the #ADOS reparations movement. I will expound upon the gross misfeasance of this organization in this article and why no one should pay attention to this group because if they did we would be further away from actually achieving reparations.

With the emergence of the #ADOS movement and the unification around a common identity, members of the old guard including N’COBRA began to take note. Instead of playing the role of gracious elders and eager advisors to the new and burgeoning ADOS movement, the remnants of N’COBRA leadership, became scorched earth obstructionist, doing and saying anything that they could in an attempt to malign the ADOS movement and its current push for reparations. Whether or not they were scorned elders or compensated collaborators, one thing was for sure, they hated the ADOS movement. Most likely because as an identity, ADOS was in direct opposition to the “African people” indoctrination that N’COBRA mostly subscribed, a term that they constantly interjected into the conversation.

Continued use of the term “African people” indicates that the group N’COBRA does not have sole allegiance to Native Black Americans, but see themselves as part of an imaginary group that does not see borders, country lines, constitutions and boundaries but only see blackness. This is the confusion which contributes to their ineffectiveness as an organization and their continued propagation of an antiquated ideology. In this article I will collocate some of NCOBRAs history, litigation and attempted litigation.

Founding, early membership and pervasive ideology

“They would subscribe to political ideologies as diverse as Herbert Marcuse‘s Marxism; Black nationalism; and liberal integrationism. Some were members of the Black elite; others embraced a working-class consciousness and/or rejected the allures of middle-class integrationism.[i]” N’COBRA started in 1987 with a handful of members many with contrasting backgrounds and subscribing to diverse ideologies, N’COBRA stood for National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. N’COBRA’s leadership subscribed to “a strong-form Black nationalism, Calling for a separate Black nation-state within the borders of the United States.[ii]” This is very peculiar in light of the development that among the early core members of this “black nationalist” and “pan Africanist” organization, it included at least four white people[iii]. The induction of white members into the core membership of N’COBRA is indicative that it was not serious about its mission or founding principles even in the early stages.

N’COBRA became known for rigorous discussions about what to do but never actually doing it. “The discussion on substance was often exhilarating, complex, and thought-provoking; yet, the differences made decision making time consuming and often tedious.[iv]” Lack of tangible and identifiable accomplishments are attributed to the fact that the group had many people with many different perspectives and many ideas of what reparations was and who would be entitled to it. The group touted “Membership and its different chapters, affiliates and supporters in the USA, Africa, Europe, Central and South America and the Caribbean” and Seemed to be more interested in appeasing different groups than actually advocating for reparations. “The nationalists and pan-Africanists spoke of Black self-determination and sovereignty.” “Others spoke of becoming equal citizens of the United States.” And “Members on the left wanted to use the litigation to reveal the impossibility of the capitalist United States being willing to fully confront and remedy racial and economic injustices.[v]” This reveals that the some of the motives behind N’COBRAS legislation and litigation is not reparations for Native Black Americans, but to shame the “Capitalist United States” for what ultimate purpose, who knows. This indicates the organization has ulterior motives for all intents and purposes.

The minimum requirements of a purported reparations organization or the platform of any reparations movement would be to specify what the debt is for, who is owed and how will it be paid. NCOBRA has failed to do these three things which would make it less a reparations organization and more of a black unity Pan African organization. One of the reasons that NCOBRA may be unable or unwilling to be specific about the “who”, is that at least two members of the core leadership were 2nd generation Caribbean Immigrants[vi]. The results of NCOBRA’s repeated misclassification of Native Black Americans and its implications are found in the HR40 Bill.

HR 40

The result of 30 years of activism and legal maneuvers and strategies of N’COBRA is/was Rep. Conyers introducing the HR 40 Bill in 1989. Aside from that the group has not significantly and meaningfully contributed to the push for reparations for Native Black Americans.

HR 40 Was introduced “To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.[vii]” As we dissect this Bill, I will highlight the areas that I deem problematic, and that which being removed is essential to having a viable justice claim, one which NCOBRA seems unable or unwilling to articulate.

the Bill states one of the findings as, “the slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor;[viii]” The repeated use of the term “African” to describe Native Black Americans creates confusion and furthermore what are African citizenship rights? Terms like these are at the root of NCOBRAS problematic ideology and are injurious to the justice claim exclusive to Native Black Americans.

Bizarrely enough NCOBRA also identifies an area of injury as “the manner in which textual and digital instructional resources and technologies are being used to deny the inhumanity of slavery and the crime against humanity of people of African descent in the United States;[ix]” This Implies that we need reparations for the way that we are portrayed in school books and in the way that this statement is currently worded, reparations could include new textbooks and a new curriculum which would not be reparations and is significantly insufficient to address any of the immediate needs of Native Black Americans.

As an injury stemming from slavery, HR 40 would also investigate “The role which the Federal and State governments of the United States supported the institution of slavery in constitutional and statutory provisions, including the extent to which such governments prevented, opposed, or restricted efforts of formerly enslaved Africans and their descendants to repatriate to their homeland.[x]” This is another very troubling aspect of the Bill. What homeland, what country where? One way plane tickets to Africa is not my idea of reparations but would be instead forced deportation. The fact that “repatriation” is indicated as a remedy is In fact that is a way to negate our justice claim. By expatriation (which is what it would really be) you may be giving up your citizenship and also giving up your right to a justice claim.

Another troubling aspect of the document is the process of appointment of commission members, their terms and compensation. “The Commission shall be composed of 13 members three members shall be appointed by the President and Three by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. One member shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate. Six from the major civil society and reparations organizations that have historically championed the cause of reparatory justice.[xi]” They way that the current commission members are appointed would give NCOBRA members first dibs on these highly paid positions.

When one contrast “The term of office for members shall be for the life of the Commission” and “The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which the Commission submits its report to the Congress” One begins to understand that as established, the committee members could enrich themselves by delaying the process of creating the report. Commission members are paid a government salary at the step of GS–18 and would be compensated for travel expenses related to the work of the commission. The incentive is to take long filing the report because the longer that it takes the commission to file, the more checks they would receive.

The commission would be initially allocated $12,000,000 to execute the duties necessary of filing the report. The committee would also be able to “enter into contracts with departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, State agencies, and private firms, institutions, and agencies, for the conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other activities necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Commission”, The way that the members of the commission are chosen, the terms of the commission, compensation and the powers of the commission to enter into contract with government agencies and third parties are a cause for concern and can lead to paternalism and corruption and may be the reason why NCOBRA wants to remain in control of the process

Legal Commission, its purpose and its ultimate failure

Although touted as the most effective branch of the N’COBRA organization, the litigation committee was actually the biggest disappointment it never filed a formal complaint for reparations despite working on it for over 20 years. NCOBRAS litigation committee was formed to “develop a lawsuit that would remedy the vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow still being experienced by present day Black people.[xii]” After their first meeting in 1995 it still took two years to officially meet as the litigation committee and even after holding their official meeting they were still uncommitted and unmotivated to even meet on a regular basis. “delays immediately surfaced as subcommittees often did not meet between meetings or the attorney assigned to the subcommittee was unable to be a part of the meeting.[xiii]”

NCOBRAs litigation committee finally formulated the legal strategy of filing class action lawsuits for five areas, one for each ongoing category of injury. The areas included “Peoplehood (the disconnection from Africa), Criminal Punishment, Education, Wealth/Poverty and Health[xiv]”. The first category is extremely problematic in the notion that if the disconnection from Africa is an injury then a remedy would be a reconnection to Africa i.e. repatriation or as I would call it forced deportation. The fact that this was one of the areas of legal focus was irresponsible and antithesis of true reparations and is another reminder of the organizations incapability of functioning even as a semi-effective entity in the movement for reparations.

In addition to the problematic language and concepts included in its legal strategies and drafts, hardly any real litigation was ever filed by the group. “A final obstacle to filing a complaint was that N‘COBRA could not raise sufficient funds to hire full-time staff to finalize the complaint and actually implement the litigation.[xv]” So to recap the organization worked on formal reparations lawsuit since 1998, at least five subcommittees met for years with the intent to file a class action lawsuit for each of the injury areas, but never even formalized one complaint in one of the five areas. By all measures this deems the litigation commission ineffective.

Amicus Brief

Although N’COBRA’s litigation committee never filed a formal complaint for reparations they did file an Amicus brief in a case that was before the Supreme Court. The purpose of an Amicus Brief is to give supporting testimony from a third party in favor of one of the parties in the case. It is also used to raise or interject issues in Supreme Court cases. The strategy of NCOBRA was to re-interject the concept of reparations into the Supreme Court in filing an Amicus brief in support of the respondents. My assertion is that their amicus brief introduced language that is actually injurious to our justice claim and furthermore they sided with the wrong party and for the wrong reasons. Their Amicus brief was egregious in that it contributes to our erasure as a distinct ethnic group, dilutes our justice claim and as a result is counterproductive to achieving reparations for Native Black Americans.

Facts of the case

“In 1995, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher both applied for admission to the University of Michigan’ College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) as residents of the state of Michigan. Both are of Caucasian descent. Both were denied admission and told that, although they were qualified, they were not competitive enough applicants to be admitted on first review. The University of Michigan’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions used a point system in which students were awarded an additional “20 points for being a member of an underrepresented minority”, In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a class action suit against the University, the LSA, Lee Bollinger, and James Duderstadt. They argued that the admission procedure discriminated against certain racial and ethnic groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[xvi]”

Gratz and Hamacher won their case, a higher court overturned it, they challenged that ruling and the case eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. The question posed to the court was “Did the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?” My answer is yes it did, because its racial preferences were not aimed at benefiting the Native Black Americans whom the 14th amendment was enacted to protect. N’COBRA states its position in the amicus brief as “The Michigan affirmative action educational programs before the Court today should be upheld as reparations to African Americans. If remand is necessary, lower courts should be instructed to uphold the programs to the extent they satisfy this compelling state interest.[xvii]” holding up the current universities affirmative action policy, one which admitted everyone but white males as a minority, as reparations for Native Black Americans is grossly negligent. As ados101.com stated affirmative action must be streamlined to be excusive to Native Black Americans, and that is what would make it a part of a larger and more comprehensive reparations package.

NCOBRA also states in the brief “Throughout most of its history, the United States has been an exceedingly hostile place for Africans and their descendants. And “The choice of race as a classification system to deny fundamental human rights for Africans was made by the oppressors, not the Africans[xviii]”. Excessive use of contradictory language and irresponsible assertions made this amicus brief pointless and essentially harmful to the case for reparations. The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of Gratz and Hamacher.

“Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the 6–3 majority. The Court held that the OUA’s policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority” status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue.[xix]” The Court held that “Because the University’s use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents’ asserted interest in diversity, the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. For the reasons set forth in Grutter v. Bollinger, post, at 327–333, the Court has today rejected petitioners’ argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest.[xx]”

As the above ruling states, the universities polices were not “sufficiently narrowly tailored” meaning that anyone and everyone could claim minority status and benefit from the campus diversity program, which NCOBRA referred to in legal documents as reparations. The above quote also signifies that our claim is justified by law; it’s just too bad N’COBRA wasn’t able to make that cogent and coherent case.

Conclusion

All research indicates that NCOBRA in its current state is incapable of representing the interest of Native Black Americans with fidelity. Duel allegiances, ulterior motives, gross negligence and malicious attacks on current proponents of reparations make N’COBRA not an ally of reparations, but an enemy of reparations. NCOBRA actually is fighting for reparations not for Native Black Americans, but for people from Africa whether they live on the continent or live in America. In one of his articles Conrad Worrill quoted the Dekar Declaration, a document developed by African government officials from different countries pertaining to the transatlantic slave trade. “Affirm that the slave trade is a unique tragedy in the history of humanity, particularly against Africans”. They have the ideology that Africans are all owed reparations from America and that people in Africa faced the same amount of injury from the slave trade as Native Black Americans and so all of us should be a party to the same justice claim. The fact that they are fighting for reparations for slavery to be awarded by descendants of people who enslaved us and sold us into slavery makes the NCOBRA organization guilty of misfeasance. Their ideology and actions are incompatible with the actions required to pursue a justice claim and have been detrimental to our justice claim and as a result N’COBRA is in dereliction of duty in its self- implied obligation to the Native Black American community. Their involvement in any ongoing reparations legislation must be opposed for the reasons laid out in this article.

[i] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 2

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[ii] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 37

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[iii] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 39

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[iv] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 44

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[v] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 44

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[vi] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 54–57

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[vii] 116th Congress 1st session HR 40 Bill page 1

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr40/BILLS-116hr40ih.pdf

[viii] 116th Congress 1st session HR 40 Bill page 2

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr40/BILLS-116hr40ih.pdf

[ix] 116th Congress 1st session HR 40 Bill page 4

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr40/BILLS-116hr40ih.pdf

[x] 116th Congress 1st session HR 40 Bill page 6

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr40/BILLS-116hr40ih.pdf

[xi] 116th Congress 1st session HR 40 Bill page 9–10

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr40/BILLS-116hr40ih.pdf

[xii] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 42

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[xiii] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 44

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[xiv] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 42

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[xv] “Historic and Modern Social Movements for Reparations: The National Coalition for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) and its Antecedents” by Adjoa A. Aiyetoro and Adrienne D. Davis page 46

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=wgss

[xvi] “Gratz v. Bollinger.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-516. Accessed 1 Aug. 2019.

[xvii] “BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OFTHE NATIONAL COALITION OF BLACKS FOR REPARATIONS IN AMERICA (N’COBRA) ANDTHE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OFBLACK LAWYERS (NCBL) IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS” page 2 http://ncobra.org/resources/pdf/ARGUMENT.pdf

[xviii] “BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OFTHE NATIONAL COALITION OF BLACKS FOR REPARATIONS IN AMERICA (N’COBRA) ANDTHE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OFBLACK LAWYERS (NCBL) IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS” page 3 http://ncobra.org/resources/pdf/ARGUMENT.pdf

[xix] “Gratz v. Bollinger.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-516. Accessed 1 Aug. 2019.

[xx] Gratz v. Bollinger Pg. 246 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/244/#245