House Resolution 40, a bill known as the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act is the newest controversial brainchild of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who is presenting it for review in the Civil Rights Committee.The language of the bill is disturbingly open ended and gives sole power to a reparations commission, which will then operate under its own discretion.But considering President Obama’s opposition to reparations, one must wonder what Conyers hopes to accomplish by proposing such a measure.The authors of the bill must have reason to believe the president will agree to the legislation.If the president opposes slave reparations out of principle, then it’s doubtful this bill will have a chance while he’s in office. However, Obama merely opposes reparations for politically strategic reasons, as evidenced by his answer to concerning reparations in a 2004 questionnaire by the NAACP:”I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, ‘We’ve paid our debt,’ and to avoid the much harder work.”To clarify, this strongly indicates he supports reparations on principle.One logical conclusion is the supporters of HR 40 are betting Obama’s support of the reparation will overcome his fear of political crossfire. Indeed, they seem strangely hopeful that the president will back them. The bill has provisions which give the president direct power to appoint three of the seven members of the reparations commission.If this proposal ever hopes to see fruition, it will require active participation on the part of the president, beyond simply signing the bill into law. And this indicates an alarming amount of confidence in the president’s favorable stance concerning this issue.Regardless of the motivations shrouding this legislation, it is obviously nothing more than a political ploy rather than a sincere attempt to reconcile the disadvantages of a certain demographic.One must wonder how the reparations committee will go about inquiring after an event that happened more than a century ago, especially considering no one from that time period is still alive.Further, the nature of this bill is riddled with frightening irony.While its stated purpose is to “educate the American public” of the commission’s findings and thereby fix racism, reparations are far more likely to foster animosity between races than eliminate them.Proponents of the bill believe seizing money from the public to toss at a group of people is the best way to make everybody get along with each other and compensate for something that happened more than a century ago.Perhaps, under their pretense of good intentions, what they really seek is to nurture racial discord for their own political gain.There is money to be made in creating such a problem, for without a problem, a politician can’t offer himself as the solution and thereby sustain his career.Taking this a step further, however, it is possible the proposal was generated only to distract from the larger issues of the day. This is a highly controversial topic — perfect for generating mouth-frothing polarization. But there is a slim chance it will survive the Civil Rights Committee.By such logic, the presence of a bill like HR 40 is highly desirable for many reasons. It ensures discord, which thereby ensures power, it gives faux appeasement to the “victimized,” and it distracts from larger issues.It’s a win-win situation, save the political flak from Republicans. But considering the weight they currently hold in Congress, it’s hardly a concern of the other side.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication freshman from Central City.—-Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]