This Supreme Court Decision Could Encourage One of the Worst Forms of Racism

Nick Wing, Huffington Post, February 17, 2015

{snip}

The country has progressed since the late ’60s, and blatant prejudice is now much less common. Yet housing discrimination persists, often due to bias built into the system. So over the years, the federal courts have expanded the Fair Housing Act to cover practices with a discriminatory outcome. Under this theory, known as “disparate impact,” a policy or practice can be illegal if it disproportionately affects minorities, regardless if that was its purpose. Disparate impact claims are crucial to fighting racial inequality today.

But this key weapon could soon be taken away. The Supreme Court will likely rule this summer in a case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, that may forbid disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Such a decision would effectively defang the law. It would also shed a disturbing light on how this court believes the law should react to entrenched discrimination.

The underlying reality of the Texas case is that certain housing policies disadvantage minorities more than whites, whether by hidden design, careless disregard or unfortunate coincidence. It’s this type of discrimination–in housing, but also employment, voting and education–that today produces some of the biggest barriers to bridging the racial divide. If the Supreme Court acknowledges this truth and believes justice is best served by fostering equality “in fact, and not simply in form” —to borrow a phrase from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg–its decision should be easy. That it probably won’t be helps explain why racial inequality remains such an unrelenting problem for the nation.

{snip}

Passed just a week after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, the law made it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental or financing of housing based on race, religion and national origin. It prohibited the sort of straight-up racist language and policies long used to maintain housing segregation. The more blatant forms of redlining, for example, were banned. (Gender, familial status and disability were later added to the list of protected classes.)

{snip}

Over the past 40 years, judges have repeatedly read the statute to forbid many policies and practices with a disparate impact on minorities, even where no racist intent can be shown.

In a rule issued in February 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development clarified the formula for deciding disparate-impact housing cases: If the plaintiff can demonstrate that a practice has a discriminatory effect, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the practice serves a substantial, nondiscriminatory interest that can’t be served by a less discriminatory means. If the defendant meets that burden, the plaintiff can still win by showing that, in fact, there is a less discriminatory means that would serve the defendant’s needs.

Note this means that a policy with a disparate impact that also has a valid justification and no less-discriminatory alternative is legal. For that reason, there are plenty of legitimate housing restrictions and requirements that disproportionately affect minorities today–like occupancy limits, credit score standards and income verification.

number of high-profile disparate impact cases have been settled in the past few years alone. Many focused on financial institutions and lenders that were accused of offering less favorable rates and services, on average, to minority customers than to white customers.

{snip}

The National Fair Housing Alliance reported that 27,352 housing discrimination complaints were made nationwide in 2013. The organization estimates that at least 4 million violations actually occur each year.

{snip}

On Jan. 21, the justices heard oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. The Dallas-area nonprofit, which promotes racially and economically diverse communities, filed suit after finding that for the past few decades, the Texas housing department had allocated almost all affordable-housing tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods, while denying credits to those in white neighborhoods. This effectively kept low-income residents from moving to white communities. The nonprofit is raising a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act.

The Texas agency, unable to show there was no less-discriminatory alternative to its practice, lost the case in federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. It petitioned the Supreme Court to rule for the first time on the overall permissibility of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Court watchers suggest the decision may come down to Justice Antonin Scalia, who during oral arguments indicated sympathy with both sides.

Opponents argue that disparate impact claims are unfair to policymakers, financial institutions and property owners. If housing policies and practices are instituted for legitimate reasons based on race-neutral criteria, the basic argument goes, then they should be legal despite any unintended discriminatory effects–and the people who implement those policies and practices should not be blamed.

During oral arguments, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller suggested another problem: that housing officials and developers wary of possible Fair Housing Act lawsuits might make race-conscious decisions in favor of minorities, creating “the functional equivalent of a quota system.” This would raise constitutional issues of its own.

Other critics have expressed concerns that the idea of disparate impact is too fluid–that just because a practice unevenly affects a minority group doesn’t mean that it harms the group or that it doesn’t help other minority groups.

{snip}

Fair housing advocates remain concerned–in part because this is the third time the Supreme Court has agreed to consider disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act in less than four years. The two earlier cases were each settled less than a month before they were heard by the justices. Civil rights groups, which pushed for those settlements, worry that the justices’ eagerness to rule on this issue could spell trouble.

{snip}

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2007 decision on school desegregation in Seattle. That sounds simple enough, but such a focus on explicit racial preferences overlooks the issues of structural discrimination–the kind found in housing and other areas today.

In 2009, the Supreme Court declared that New Haven, Connecticut, had violated the civil rights of white firefighters when it threw out a promotion exam that no black firefighter had passed. The city took the racial gap in exam results as a sign that the test itself might violate employment protections under the Civil Rights Act, but the court ruled against New Haven. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted a key section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states had to obtain pre-approval from the federal government before making changes to their voting systems. And last year, the justices upheld a Michigan ban on affirmative action, declaring that a state’s voters can prohibit the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

As ProPublica noted, a ruling against disparate impact claims this year would give the Roberts Court a dubious hat trick: It would have effectively undermined the three most substantial civil rights laws of the 1960s–the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides in the current case, some of the justices are clearly unconvinced that discrimination not driven by overt bias is a problem, or at least one that the law should take a stand against.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • TomIron361

    blatant prejudice is now much less common.
    ___________________________________
    Therein lies the problem. We need much more blatant racism.

    • “Blatant prejudice is much less common”-less common AMONG WHITES that is.

    • JustJeff

      I prefer to think of it as just being honest.

  • “Worst form of racism”

    Zomg third reich death camps genocide six million LOL!

    Or rather: “Please click onto this hyperlink so we can drive up the HuffPo’s traffic stats and impress the CPI/CPM advertisers.”

  • Reynardine

    First it was Equality of Rights.

    Then it was Equality of Opportunity.

    Now it’s Equality of Outcome.

    When will it end… hint it never will.

    • Oil Can Harry

      As you note, it will NEVER end because we’ll never have Equality of Outcome among groups with different average IQs and crime rates.

      On second thought, it CAN end… if whites grow a pair and put an end to it themselves.

    • TruthBeTold

      The next step, which is coming, is superior outcome.

      ‘Systemic racism’ will be declared so intractable that the only solution will be to flip the numbers; more blacks hired than whites until white unemployment numbers are compatible to black unemployment numbers, housing, school outcome, etc.

    • WR_the_realist

      It will end when all whites are dead.

      • Cid Campeador

        That will NEVER happen. At some point this pot is going to boil over. Have a look at the Black on White murder stats from 2014. It made me sick.

        • Epoche

          I am tired of the foolishness. At some point it just becomes germaine to ask if you dislike white males then why not get rid of the civil rights act so we wouldnt even have to associate with one another?

      • Wing-nut.

        Try’n to imagine a world without whites… Can’t stop laughin’.

    • It will end in the genocide of the White Race.

  • D.B. Cooper

    Huffington Post??? I’ve been sooo wanting to comment on this same article for a couple of days now. However, you may find this hard to believe, but I’m BANNED from that sight for offensive comments.

    • Frank Pucillo

      No you were banned for telling the truth like me.

      • Alexandra1973

        The truth is offensive to them and their ilk.

    • Chip Carver

      I am. OK, under a different moniker, but I’ve been popped there before. But one can always find their way back…

    • LHathaway

      Me too.

      • LexiconD1

        Haha, me too.

        • shawnmer

          Me three! Such little “tolerance” from a site who preaches the concept all the time.

    • They would not have banned you if you had merely been wrong. Someone who is simply tragically mistaken can be argued with. Only when one is spot-on correct does it arouse such intense hatred among the Cultural Marxists.

    • jps73

      Don’t feel too bad i was banned by WND for telling the truth.

      • Cid Campeador

        Remember that a “racist” is one who wins a debate with a Progressive.

      • John Smith

        Same at Breitbart.

  • JohnEngelman

    Whites resist the movement of blacks into their neighborhoods because that movement brings with it increases in the crime rate, and reductions in property values. It is easy to demonstrate that. It is unfortunate that it is dangerous to point it out.

  • Luca

    I don’t think it is wise to rent to people with poor credit scores, a bankruptcy, no job, a police record and a poor work history.

    But alas, according to liberal philosophy, this will have a disparate impact on minorities.

    According to my philosophy: “Tough (rhymes with sit.)”

    • Sick of it

      Slumlords know they can get a good deal renting to blacks on a voucher. Whites complain about stuff being broken.

      • John Smith

        My uncle worked for his uncle in the ’50s doing repair work on the tenements his uncle owned. They mixed up all the old paint he had in his barn and drove downtown into the city in a beat-up work truck to paint them after the previous residents moved out and just painted everything, including the roaches. Apparently, the smell of fresh paint attracted them and they’d get negroes asking if the place was for rent in no time.

        His uncle distilled his own moonshine on his farm and drank morning to night, but he always made sure he had some to give to the blacks because it made them more pleasant to deal with if they had maintenance issues and quieted down their usual shrieking and yelling. He used some firm a J€wish guy he knew, who got him into the slumlord business, recommended to collect the rent, which saved him the trouble and allowed him to do his own maintenance unrecognized. One of the first things he did when buying a building was to rip all the copper pipe out that he could find and install galvanized so the tenants didn’t do that instead.

        A few of his buildings burned down when the tenants set fire to them, often because one woman’s man was sleeping with another negress in the building, or vice versa. A few shootings also went down, IIRC, but I don’t believe that any of the were fatal, same with the stabbings.

        • Sick of it

          The great thing about modern negro fatigue is that when the older property owners/slumlords pass away, their descendants will likely try to sell their properties to someone who will pay actual money (whites) and not bother dealing with TNB.

  • MekongDelta69

    ‘Protected classes’ is the same garbage as ‘Hate Speech.’

    The only ‘non-protected classes’ are straight White males (and non-feminazi females), who are legal American citizens/Vets.

    Period…

  • dd121

    The notion of “disparate impact” is completely foreign to Western thinking. It presupposes that a remedy should be implemented for merely the fact that there is a difference between the races rather than any “unfair” competition. In other words, I’m black, gibs me stuff.

  • LHathaway

    One of the worst, most ungodly prejudices: not discriminating against White men enough.

  • Puggg

    I’m more worried about what the fallout is going to be if they decide the way we don’t want them to.

    • Hey! Glad to see youre still around, its been quite a while since i saw you post last. Was beginning to get worried the dusky hordes had found you. (Or maybe ive just been reading the wrong threads, lol)

      • Puggg

        No, no dusky hordes, even though my just about all white county had a dusky on dusky murder last week. What found me are new found job responsibilities.

        • HE2

          But responsibilities and job description for the better now that Fergeria has settled down, eh, Puggster? I think you said that previously.
          Did your homicide officers apprehend the dusky killer in question?

          • Puggg

            Yes, but I also got a promotion.

            The dusky killer is definitely a guest at the hotel where I was until very recently a concierge.

          • HE2

            Great news.
            Around those dusky hordes, always mind your six, Pugg. Do not forget.
            We want to keep you around for a long time.

  • connorhus

    I have often tried researching the Disparate Impact rulings and must admit I have never figured them out. Yes I know what they are really for but what I am referring to is why they haven’t been used by Whites in instances such as “Obummer Care” where it taxes tanning booths or used to sue the government because housing values go down. Those are all disparate impact against Whites but no one has used it that way.

    My guess is it is written in somewhere as a Minority only legal route, which in itself would be disparate impact actually.

    It’s time we got this disparate impact swill thrown out with Affirmative Action and other “Disparate Impact” government mandates.

    • Da Troof

      I’ve always thought this myself.

      • John Smith

        Smart white nationalist lawyers should hoist the “diversity” movement by its own petard.

  • Sick of it

    The real nuisance with all of this is the fact that HUD creates ghettos filled with the worst of the blacks. HUD should not be allowed to bring masses of criminals into ANY city, town, or village. Including black ones.

  • TruthBeTold

    Under this theory, known as “disparate impact,” a policy or practice can be illegal if it disproportionately affects minorities, regardless if that was its purpose. Disparate impact claims are crucial to fighting racial inequality today.

    Yes, it’s nothing more than a theory.

    • It’s not even really a theory. A genuine theory is falsifiable. The concept of “disparate impact” really just consists of an elaborate game of excuse-making; there’s always another layer of excuses.

  • WR_the_realist

    We all know that the Huffington Post is right up there with Salon and MSNBC as being reliable in always taking an anti-white stance. The Final Call might be a bit more objective. But hey, at least the Huffington Post has decent coverage of UFOs:

    www huffingtonpost com/news/ufo/

    • Cid Campeador

      The Huffington Puffington Post.

  • Who wants to live around ghetto garbage? If those folks acted like us, there would be far fewer complaints on our part. We had some Section-8 renters across from us, and they were completely awful. One of the first things they did was bring a rusted-out, unregistered van to the townhouse complex, parked it in one of the public parking spaces, and used it as a storage shed. I had that sucker towed, and it never reappeared. They completely trashed the inside of that unit, and after they moved out, the place needed a complete re-hab. The owner’s crew filled a roll-off with destroyed appliances, toilets, cabinetry, sheetrock from the walls, and carpet, and then half-filled a second. How exactly does one break a toilet? That’s particularly unfortunate, as one can’t find 3.5-gallon tanks anymore; everything is now 1.6 gallon. When my old house-sitter cracked a lid, I had a devil of a time finding a replacement, until I went to a warehouse full of salvaged building materials (I bought three, which was all they had).

    They wanted to know if their niglet could play with Ariadne, which meant we would be providing free babysitting and probably food for the brat. We said “Of course not,” so they called the police on me. The cops didn’t like them either, so I didn’t even get a harassment summons. They had loud fights and louder parties, and blasted their hideous “music” while sitting on their front porch all evening; for some reason they couldn’t do that indoors. That’s classic “passive-aggressive” behavior. I am pretty certain that I didn’t pay $120,000 to live near that.

    These “people” were a large part of why my HOA voted to prohibit any individual or corporation from renting out more than two units in the complex. If someone wants to be a slumlord, they’re stuck doing it somewhere else.

    Now there’s a nice retired couple living there, and we couldn’t be happier with the situation. I guess that landlord learned her lesson. My neighboring unit was once a rental as well; we nicknamed that “Nikki’s Whorehouse”. There were loud parties, complete with outdoor fistfights at 3:00 AM, she never cleaned up after her dogs, etc. I drove Nikki out, and now that place is owner-occupied: another nice retired couple.

    Living around retired white people is nice. Being deported to vibrant Diversistan in one’s own neighborhood is not. Nick Wing appears to think that normal people want to spend their own money for the “privilege” of living near dirtbags. We don’t. I was shunned by the neighbors for some years after my release from federal prison, as my P.O. wandered around the neighborhood “warning” everyone I was back, but I have been re-accepted. I was once even warned by one about some horrible terrorist named “Scott”; I burst out laughing and admitted that was me. All that was required was acting white.

    The diversitards don’t act white, in part because that would be an implicit admission of their own racial and cultural dysfunction. Writers for HuffPo want us to collectively accept the grotesque behavior of most browns and nearly all blacks as “normal”. That expectation on their part is dehumanizing for the rest of us.

  • LiberalismFailed

    Disparate impact theory has got to go. The Texas case facts are that tax credits to real estate developers were going to companies who disproportionately built low income housing in minority areas, and not Caucasian areas, which led to “segregation.” What they are really trying to do is force integration on whites through private “Civil Rights” litigation by left wing non-profits and threat by the justice department. Basically, you better build these low income minority housing in white areas or you will be sued because although you aren’t being racist, it’s leading to a “disparate impact” on minorities.. These disparate impact theory cases make a mockery of the justice system. Another example is the New York Firefighters test. Because only a small fraction (if at all) of the minorities could pass a race neutral standardized test, minorities weren’t able to become New York Firefighters. So they had to do away with the test.

  • De’Ontavious Jizzaiah Jones

    Huff Post and other media never address the insanity of their premise: There is bias built into the system and entrenched racism because evil white people keep discriminating YET it is racist if these poor put upon minorities can’t snuggle up next to their evil oppressors in white neighborhoods and schools.

    • Hy Alldredge

      They’re also pretty much admitting that living around black people sucks, even for other black people. They just want poor and middle class whites to share in the misery.

  • John Smith

    So the key to solving disparate impact is to shift more of the burden of dealing with blacks to white areas – that’s some liberal logic right there.

  • John Smith

    He owns it because he and his kind were allowed in and the previous white owner took a bath as the property value sank to rock bottom. Now it’s filled with gangbangers, crack hoes and welfare mothers and their half-dozen “chiluns” by different “babydaddies.”

  • John Smith

    Exactly.

  • Ella

    If the buyer cannot afford a 350K house with private greens and splash pads in majority white neighbourhoods, then, it omits poorer whites as well as minorities. The article mentioned “….
    occupancy limits, credit score standards and income verification,” which states the obvious for loans. Do residents really want 3-4 generations of families in a single home that will create parking problems, noise levels and other disturbances??? Our homes are not slummy projects or turd-world farming communities. I think I’ll buy a boat and live on it!

  • Heres what I truly don’t understand.

    If there are soooo many evil, wicked, rayciss, viciously unfair whites that laws are required to essentially illegalize any form of racism, shouldnt that be a fairly clear indicator that maybe the conflicting groups aren’t anywhere near ready to coexist in the same country ?

    Put another way, you can’t “cure” something by outlawing it. I’m reasonably certain that everyone knows this, otherwise cancer would have been outlawed long ago.

    I dont know how clearly im making my point … basically if blacks are so oppressed, why in the name of god arent they begging to be airlifted off to haiti, or nigeria, or wherever. Why, in fact, are they pouring INTO the country? If whitey is so godawfully evil that you need to make a laundry list of rules and restrictions telling him how he must act around blacks, then maybe, for Gods sake, blacks should be removed as far from us as possible!

  • Fr. John+

    You know, if Ruth Bader GINSBURG would rule on the ‘unfair treatment’ Palestinians are getting over in Palestine, I’d believe she shouldn’t recuse herself on THIS ‘law.’

    As it is, all of this bogus system needs to come down. Freedom of Association is still… a FREEDOM real Americans cherish; not some Bolshevisitic in-group machinations by the ‘Chosen’.

  • scottthestrategerist

    Although I know I’m preaching to the choir, the issue is very simple: the races do not have the same innate potential to the same degree. Blacks are 13% of the population and 90-95% of the professional basketball players, and this was true 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 30 years ago. The reason is not some sort of reverse racism. Rather, blacks, evolving on their own in Africa for at least the last 100,000 years, evolved the abilities to run fast and jump high because these are the survival skills needed to survive in Africa. However, they didn’t develop creative intelligence, civility or strong family units because they were unnecessary in an environment wherein food is plentiful and grows year-round. Whites, living in the cold north, did have to evolve creative intelligence, civility and strong family units in order to survive. Hence, there are racial differences and they account for differences in achievement, intelligence and ability. But these differences are genetic and you can no more legislate them away than you can legislate that blacks be born with blond hair because you think it’s unfair that only whites have blond children. Once you understand that these differences are genetic and hence fixed and immutable, then, and only then, will you have the proper foundation for addressing racial disparity.

  • Augustus3709

    The Outcome of any endeavor can be considered “racist”, even if there was no hostile intent?

    That is absolutely insane.

    It turns “racism” into an argument fallacy –an appeal to special terminology on an ad-hoc basis, predicated solely upon the agenda and bias of the accuser.