Staff Reports
Boston has quietly pulled the plug on the Tufts-led portion of its city-funded reparations research after questions about the lead researcher’s scholarship. The city and Tufts agreed to cancel the contract and Tufts returned the full $335,000. Officials say the move was “reluctant,” but the result is plain: one half of the two-volume report is dead in the water until someone finds credible work to replace it.
City and university pull the plug on the reparations report
Mayor Michelle Wu’s office and Tufts University announced the cancellation after peer critics flagged errors in the book by the Tufts lead researcher, Kerri K. Greenidge. Tufts’ outside review reportedly found “multiple errors of fact and citation,” and Greenidge is no longer employed by the university. Joseph Feaster, chair of the city Task Force on Reparations, said the Northeastern team’s later-period volume is complete, but the task force wants the earlier-history work fixed before releasing a full body of research.
Academic standards vs. political timelines
There’s a moral and practical point here: if your goal is to make policy based on history, that history must meet basic standards. You cannot rush a report that claims to document Boston’s ties to slavery and Jim Crow and then pretend sloppiness is just “a matter of perspective.” Universities have a duty to be rigorous. That duty does not disappear when the subject is politically popular or when activists want answers on a schedule.
What the setback means for reparations in Boston
This cancellation is more than an embarrassment. It delays any city-backed recommendations and hands critics a talking point: the work is rushed, ideological, and unreliable. The task force has to decide whether to rehire a qualified team, re-scope the project, or lean on community historians and archival research. Meanwhile, $335,000 that was meant to fund scholarship will be redirected — and taxpayers deserve to know how it will be spent next.
Common-sense next steps for the city and the task force
If Boston is serious about reparative policy, the city must demand transparency. Publish the peer-review findings, open the contract to a competitive process, and recruit independent scholars with clear standards for sourcing and documentation. There’s nothing progressive about shoddy research. If Boston wants lasting justice, it will need lasting facts — not rushed narratives dressed up to fit a political timetable.
