Steve Novak opposes library sign addressing systemic racism

[Hards Alumni]

it gives you a better understanding than people who have never met a Black person, or think they know what every Black person has gone through because they watched Boyz In The Hood or Straight Outta Compton and are the most boisterous claiming everything is racist. Just as I'm able to better understand the Asian immigrant perspective though being married to one.

Asians were subject to every one of those systemic racism laws too, even prohibited from becoming citizens (Filipinos were the only Asians granted citizenship in the '20s because they were a US territory but had their citizenship revoked when they became a commonwealth in 1935). How are they doing? Why do Nigerians have a higher average income than the overall US population?

Yes, our country has a shameful history of discrimination and blocking of opportunities for minority groups for a long time, but why have some groups been able to overcome it while others have languished?

You're not serious, are you?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Today most people don't want to be labled as a racist so we argue about semantics.

I don't always agree with Vogue, but agree here. I can't began to count the number of times I've seen discussions devolve into a version of "I don't know what it is, but it's not racism." Interestingly, I've sometime changed the discussion by saying "Ok, let's say it's not an example of racism. Can we agree that whatever it is, it's not good? And we should do something about it?" And usually I get a positive response. Many recognize the problems but are so triggered by the word racism that they will fight tooth and nail even if they agree that it is a problem.

I see a similar phenomenon in my line of work. Most respondents that I see admit to some level of wrongdoing. They admit to being jerks, to "taking things too far", to not treating the other person well, and sometimes they even admit to the specific action that they are accused of. But attach the words "stalking" or "sexual assault" or "dating violence" and they categorically deny it. I've literally had respondents tell me before "Well I punched my girlfriend, but it wasn't dating violence" and another who admitting to knowing the a woman was unconscious when he had sex with her, but categorically denied that a sexual assault took place. In both of these cases, the respodent admitted that what they did was wrong...but argued that it wasn't sexual violence. We like to argue about definitions rather than discuss the problems themselves.

[Galway Eagle]

Why do Nigerians have a higher average income than the overall US population?

So what I'm taking from this is the USA pushed African Americans down so far that it's actually better to be an African immigrant family than to have been here for generations with your family attempting to "grow in the system".

I don't think that was the point you wanted to make.

[lawdog77]

I think you meant to say that redlining became illegal in 1968.

Yes. Correct. If one feels they are a victim of discriminatory practices, there are ways to resolve them.

[lawdog77]

Today most people don't want to be labled as a racist so we argue about semantics.

I would agree with you here. I would agree with those that said if the sign said Let's Fight Racism, or Racism sucks, etc it wouldnt be a problem. Racism is clearly still around, and fighting the inherent biases is vital. I personal just do not like the term systemic racism

[ZiggysFryBoy]

If we're going off your definition, rather than acknowledging that there are lingering effects of the formerly legal systemic racism which also count as systemic racism. Then I would say closing polling locations in African American and minority communities constitutes systemic racism. I would say that school funding being tied to better test scores rather than need is systemic racism at least as it pertains to city schools. I would say that the consistent upheaval of African American communities to build highways to white neighborhoods is systemic racism. I would say that pretty much all of the public meal assistance programs have lead to major health issues in mostly minority communities and the willingness to let special interest groups run those rather than acknowledge we're essentially putting these kids at a medical and physical disadvantage early is systemic racism.

Edit: due to the way schools are being funded I would also say that home value being tied to public school prestige is also systemic racism. Don't fund schools->school does worse->home value drops -> generational wealth becomes harder to accumulate.

Sounds like you are advocating for school choice. 

Dollars go with the student, not the address.

[JWags85]

So what I'm taking from this is the USA pushed African Americans down so far that it's actually better to be an African immigrant family than to have been here for generations with your family attempting to "grow in the system".

I don't think that was the point you wanted to make.

I don't think it necessarily is a bad point, depending on how you look at it.  Its not like an immigrant POC has any distinct advantage over an American born POC, they both are susceptible to the same societal discrimination.  Its not a terrible exercise to see what may be different in their approaches and experiences.

I had a college roommate who was a first generation American born to Nigerian parents.  He grew up in a predominantly black area of Detroit.  He had some horrible things happen early in his life including his Mom having a visa issue and being unable to return to the US after a trip home to Lagos and spent most of his childhood in relative poverty.  Yet his experience and familial approach/mindset was very different than many he grew up with and went to HS with.  Of course its not all black and white, but it is an interesting thing to ponder.

[Pakuni]

Yes. Correct. If one feels they are a victim of discriminatory practices, there are ways to resolve them.

The problem is, proving discrimination is hard and the people most likely to fall victim are often the ones who can least afford pursuing a legal remedy.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Redlining is absolutely still around today.  Before, it was literally drawing red lines on a map for the bad areas.  Now, it's done by algorithms and actuarial analysis.

[Pakuni]

Yes, our country has a shameful history of discrimination and blocking of opportunities for minority groups for a long time, but why have some groups been able to overcome it while others have languished?

Oh, do tell.

[Hards Alumni]

Redlining is absolutely still around today.  Before, it was literally drawing red lines on a map for the bad areas.  Now, it's done by algorithms and actuarial analysis.

Exactly.  It's done with a wink and a nod instead of a pen and a map.

[Pakuni]

Yet his experience and familial approach/mindset was very different than many he grew up with and went to HS with.  Of course its not all black and white, but it is an interesting thing to ponder.

Why do you think that is, Wags?
What might be different between the experiences of those who are the descendants slaves and have endured generations of deprivation and discrimination, and an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. decades after the Civil Rights Movement?

[lawdog77]

The problem is, proving discrimination is hard and the people most likely to fall victim are often the ones who can least afford pursuing a legal remedy.

You're better than that. Many attorneys work on a contingency basis.

[Pakuni]

You're better than that. Many attorneys work on a contingency basis.

When they think they can win. Which is why nearly a third of civil rights suits are filed pro se. If a third are pro se, imagine how many more people just don't file because they can't find/afford a lawyer and have no clue to go about filing a federal lawsuit on their own.

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/empirical-patterns-pro-se-litigation-federal-district-courts

[lawdog77]

Redlining is absolutely still around today.  Before, it was literally drawing red lines on a map for the bad areas.  Now, it's done by algorithms and actuarial analysis.

Actually prior to the housing crash, it was the opposite, subprime and no doc loans. It's not about any racism, its about the almighty $$$

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Actually prior to the housing crash, it was the opposite, subprime and no doc loans. It's not about any racism, its about the almighty $$$

Which disproportionally negatively impacts people of color, especially Black Americans. Again, a policy doesn't have to explicitly state that its purpose is to discriminate based on race in order to be an example of systemic racism.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes. Correct. If one feels they are a victim of discriminatory practices, there are ways to resolve them.

As I hope you realize, the bar for legal discrimination and discrimination are two different things. Many bad actors operate in the space in between the two.

[lawdog77]

Which disproportionally negatively impacts people of color, especially Black Americans. Again, a policy doesn't have to explicitly state that its purpose is to discriminate based on race in order to be an example of systemic racism.

Or the policy was based strictly on predatory lending to those with bad credit, regardless of race. Payday loans are another example of this.

[Galway Eagle]

Sounds like you are advocating for school choice. 

Dollars go with the student, not the address.

I'm actually not, I think school choice has been an epic disaster in milwaukee. And when you have kids getting up at 4:30am to take a MTA bus to bayview how are they supposed to function at the level of a kid who walks to their local high school after getting up 2 or 3 hours later?

I am advocating that they take a need based approach to school funding rather than rewarding those who graduate more kids or get better results, it does nobody any good when admins are making HS teachers pass kids who should be failing just so the school can get more funding.

[real chili 83]

As I hope you realize, the bar for legal discrimination and discrimination are two different things. Many bad actors operate in the space in between the two.

I agree with this.  Some intentionally, and some without awareness. 

[dgies9156]

Lets deal with the redlining and housing issues in a factual manner for a moment.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned racially restrictive covenants in housing contracts and banned redlining. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 required banks and credit unions that take federally insured deposits to demonstrate they were serving the needs of their entire community. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 demands that lenders keep clear records on how they lend and make mortgage documents user friendly.

Are there unscrupulous people who act in racist manners? Of course. But on an institutional basis, the government has passed and -- trust me -- enforces these acts pretty aggressively. In fact, one of my clients recently received a "Needs to Improve" CRA rating, which makes it nearly impossible to do major corporate transactions until they clean their problem up.

What more should the government do?

On the question of lending to Protected Classes of people, several federal agencies have been created to address housing affordability disparities in our country. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) is one and is designed to be a conduit for low and moderate income borrowers who seek to own homes and improve themselves and their communities.

The last recession in 2008 to 2011 started with a housing finance crisis largely brought about by sub-prime lending. Prior to 2008, both the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), as well as many private sector lenders, reduced down payment and underwriting standards so that more people could afford homes. Sub-prime was largely an instrument that brought homeownership to low income people. When things went sideways, our tax dollars cleaned Freddie and Fannie up.

What many see as racism, others see as risk-based pricing. Yes, the interest rates paid by low- and moderate income folks often is higher than what's paid by the well-off. That's called default risk and based on FICO scores or other credit scores, economic history of the borrower and the probability of loss given default. There's tons of statistical data that lenders use to calculate these numbers, And, yes, folks, those numbers do not lie. Not in the least.

Risk-based pricing is why my recent college graduate son didn't get the cheap new car loan rate at the local credit union until I co-signed for his car loan. The credit union saw his credit as garbage but saw me as golden.

I'm certainly not saying there has not been past discrimination. I'm sure, given the timing of many of our parents' first housing purchases, there's a good chance certain illegal covenants were in their house purchase contracts. Heck, racial covenants were among the issues that doomed Richard Nixon's 1962 California Gubernatorial Campaign. But if a minority moved into our community -- and paid for the home with a loan or with cash -- I'm sure he or she would be welcome. I hope that's true across our country.
 

[Pakuni]

Or the policy was based strictly on predatory lending to those with bad credit, regardless of race. Payday loans are another example of this.

You're defining what should and should not be defined as systemic racism by what you see as the intent.
TAMU is defining it by the objective outcome.

Predatory lending, in theory, is race neutral. But in practice, it disproportionately impacts POC.
The same is true of something like the federal crackdown (no pun intended) on crack cocaine. In theory, the differing punishments for rock vs powder are race neutral. But in the real world, where   Blacks tended to use crack more and whites tended to use powder, it led to unequal justice and disparate sentencing based largely on race.

You're making the case that these things can't possibly be examples of systemic racism because they don't explicitly target Blacks. But in the real world, they lead to disproportionate outcomes based on race. 

[Galway Eagle]

I don't think it necessarily is a bad point, depending on how you look at it.  Its not like an immigrant POC has any distinct advantage over an American born POC, they both are susceptible to the same societal discrimination.  Its not a terrible exercise to see what may be different in their approaches and experiences.

I had a college roommate who was a first generation American born to Nigerian parents.  He grew up in a predominantly black area of Detroit.  He had some horrible things happen early in his life including his Mom having a visa issue and being unable to return to the US after a trip home to Lagos and spent most of his childhood in relative poverty.  Yet his experience and familial approach/mindset was very different than many he grew up with and went to HS with.  Of course its not all black and white, but it is an interesting thing to ponder.

From that angle I 100% agree, there was a race documentary done on my old High School and there was a scene where a kid directly from Africa got into an argument with an African American student, during a class discussion about race, over values, societal respect, and attitude. I won't get into the details between the two but it was very telling about the differences.

That being said, I again would like to reiterate my point that for every other culture, when you came to the states it was the lowest economic point you would be. However, since this is not the case for African americans, does that not show us there are societal issues keeping them from accumulating generational wealth? Some of it is internal (birth control, gangs, embracing education) some of it is society's fault (racial profiling, harsher sentencing, redlining, education funding, access to nutritional food, access to quality healthcare, access to voting, access to legal advice re landlords or water or unfair housing  practices or public works issues)

Seems like there's plenty of room for any person regardless of political affiliation to (in the least) say "yes, there is some systematic racism in this country, let's at least fix our half and they can fix theirs"

[Jockey]

Redlining stopped in 1968. There are Federal Laws to protect individuals for this.

I live in the real world.

Apparently there is no more murder, robbery, rape, blackmail, etc.  We have laws against them.

[Galway Eagle]

Lets deal with the redlining and housing issues in a factual manner for a moment.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned racially restrictive covenants in housing contracts and banned redlining. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 required banks and credit unions that take federally insured deposits to demonstrate they were serving the needs of their entire community. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 demands that lenders keep clear records on how they lend and make mortgage documents user friendly.

Are there unscrupulous people who act in racist manners? Of course. But on an institutional basis, the government has passed and -- trust me -- enforces these acts pretty aggressively. In fact, one of my clients recently received a "Needs to Improve" CRA rating, which makes it nearly impossible to do major corporate transactions until they clean their problem up.

What more should the government do?

On the question of lending to Protected Classes of people, several federal agencies have been created to address housing affordability disparities in our country. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) is one and is designed to be a conduit for low and moderate income borrowers who seek to own homes and improve themselves and their communities.

The last recession in 2008 to 2011 started with a housing finance crisis largely brought about by sub-prime lending. Prior to 2008, both the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), as well as many private sector lenders, reduced down payment and underwriting standards so that more people could afford homes. Sub-prime was largely an instrument that brought homeownership to low income people. When things went sideways, our tax dollars cleaned Freddie and Fannie up.

What many see as racism, others see as risk-based pricing. Yes, the interest rates paid by low- and moderate income folks often is higher than what's paid by the well-off. That's called default risk and based on FICO scores or other credit scores, economic history of the borrower and the probability of loss given default. There's tons of statistical data that lenders use to calculate these numbers, And, yes, folks, those numbers do not lie. Not in the least.

Risk-based pricing is why my recent college graduate son didn't get the cheap new car loan rate at the local credit union until I co-signed for his car loan. The credit union saw his credit as garbage but saw me as golden.

I'm certainly not saying there has not been past discrimination. I'm sure, given the timing of many of our parents' first housing purchases, there's a good chance certain illegal covenants were in their house purchase contracts. Heck, racial covenants were among the issues that doomed Richard Nixon's 1962 California Gubernatorial Campaign. But if a minority moved into our community -- and paid for the home with a loan or with cash -- I'm sure he or she would be welcome. I hope that's true across our country.

Not relevant to lending but relevant to what type of loan you'd get approved for to purchase your next home. I think it's safe to say that this isn't a one off and that not everyone is smart enough to do a comparison.

https://fox59.com/news/indianapolis-homeowner-files-discrimination-complaint-after-removal-of-black-identifiers-leads-to-100000-appraisal-increase/