The Politics of Diversity - Institutional Racism in Housing 10

The Politics of Diversity - Institutional Racism (Part II)

Objectives

  • Types of Segregation
  • Government Involvement in Housing
  • Government Sponsored Discrimination in Housing
  • Systemic Racism

Racial Discrimination

Difference Between De Jure and De Facto Segregation

  • De Jure Segregation:

  • Segregation enforced by law.

  • Characterized as formal and institutional.

  • Example: Jim Crow laws that mandated racial separation.

  • De Facto Segregation:

  • Segregation occurring without legal enforcement, often due to individual choices.

  • Characterized as informal and individual.

  • Example: Racially homogeneous neighborhoods formed through personal choices.

Judicial Acceptance of De Facto Segregation
  • Chief Justice John Roberts (2007):
  • Highlighted the distinction between governmental action and private choices in segregation.
  • Segregation by private individuals does not have constitutional implications.
  • Emphasizes that governmental actions are responsible for violations of equal protection laws.

Rothstein's Argument on Contemporary Segregation

  • Rothstein argues that government policies have historically dictated residential segregation.
  • He asserts that segregation is a result of explicit public policy, not just individual choices.
Evidence of Government-Sponsored Discrimination
  1. Public Works Administration (PWA) (1933-1937):
  • Enforced the "neighborhood composition rule" leading to forced segregation.
  • Example: Techwoods Homes in Atlanta led to the eviction of Black residents to build housing for white families.
  1. Discrimination Among War-Workers During WWII:
  • Segregated housing for war-workers, providing substandard conditions for Black workers.
  • Example: Richmond, CA naval yards enforced segregation in housing developments.
  1. Veterans Housing Program (Post-WWII):
  • VA guaranteed mortgages for veterans but systematically excluded Black veterans.
  • Resulted in the denial of home equity for many Black families post-war.
  1. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) (1934):
  • Underwrote private loans with racially discriminatory standards, promoting segregation in home-buying practices up to the 1960s.
  1. House Act of 1949:
  • Funded public housing but mandated racial segregation in construction projects, leading to the creation of racially isolated communities.
Constitutional Implications and Historical Court Cases

  • 5th Amendment:

  • Prohibits unfair treatment by the federal government.

  • 14th Amendment:

  • Ensures equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination.

Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
  • Case significance:
  • Addressed racial discriminatory practices in real estate.
  • Supreme Court held that segregation ordinances were unconstitutional, emphasizing rights granted by the 14th Amendment.
Jones v. Mayer (1968)
  • Case significance:
  • Addressed the right to purchase property devoid of racial discrimination.
  • Supreme Court ruled that discrimination in housing based on race is unconstitutional under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Fair Housing Act of 1968
  • Prohibited discrimination in housing-related transactions based on race and other classifications.
  • Challenges in enforcement have allowed for continued subtle discrimination against Black home-buyers.

Discussion Prompt

  • Do you agree that the federal government should rectify past discrimination in housing? What might that entail?