Calculated Risk is fond of going on about how many homes are "underwater" -- where homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their home is worth. It seems like something we should keep an eye on but I disagree with the conclusions they consistently make stating that these homeowners are likely to default and/or "mail in the keys".
People buy a home for a lot of reasons. One is an attempt to make a smart investment. But, in most cases, that investment is a 20 to 30-year investment, not a 3 to 5-year investment. More importantly, people buy a home to have a place to live! They are not going to simply mail in the keys because their house lost value.
For starters, they often don't even know if the home is worth more than they owe because they don't know how much they owe at any one time. They might know the house has decreased in value but that doesn't mean it's worth less than they owe. And, it also means people have to give up on their dream of home ownership, something many are unwilling to do.
Calculated Risk is a great site, but I think they're taking too many liberties extrapolating on a short-lived, geographically-focused phenomenon. i wonder if there's any historical evidence of folks doing this in past housing busts. If not, then Calculated Risk should consider much more likely factors in defaults such as job losses and catastrophic payments.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
How We Got to the Bailout
Here’s my slightly-less-brief-than-my-comments-at-The Weblog synopsis about what happened in this crisis.
In the mid-1990s sub-prime mortgages begin their steady climb in market share.
Around the same time payday and title loan lending begin to take over America’s corners not already claimed by Walgreens, CVS, and Starbucks, especially in poor neighborhoods where there were no Starbuckses.
In 1998, there are a number of us (me as just a beginner in the movement) that are very loudly (or as loudly as we can) warning that this is problematic and needs to be re-evaluated. At this time, the real problem is that loans are being made with terms that are impossible or nearly impossible to repay. The borrowers are folks that should be able to get better terms. About 90% of the people affected negatively are not white so the problem is ignored.
In the early 2000s, a number of states pass anti-predatory lending laws or regulations. Around the same time, banks that are regulated by CRA are beginning to get in to the game more often. Chase and Citi and WaMu among others buy dedicated sub-prime lenders and designate them “another channel for mortgages” — the wholesale channel (because brokers, not loan officers, are the point of contact for the borrowers). That channel is the channel where people of color get worse terms than they could have gotten through the banks regular retail lending. In Georgia, possibly the state with the best protections passed, the banking industry (with the help of Wall Street and Fannie and Freddie) get the law repealed. Ohio passes a law that essentially is pro-predatory lending in classic Republican-controlled ironic-naming-of-bills fashion. The problem is still largely ignored and still predominantly harms poor people, seniors, and people of color (and most often people who fit all three categories).
Wall Street begins its fury to buy these loans because they offer a higher return than traditional mortgages. Sub-prime loans often have egregious fees, penalties, interest rates, and adjustments that make them look on paper like a better ROI. Even with state regulations, some of which are challenged by federal regulators, there's still room to soak "unsophisticated" borrowers.
(I should add here that some banks and brokers are doing their level best to stay out of this mess. But, it is becoming increasingly difficult to only lend based on sound practices and still get any significant market share.)
In the mid 2000s, competition takes hold in a top-down manner rather than a bottom up manner. This is where things really fall apart. Previously, the problem is more contained with a few banks and investment companies. Now, everyone wants some of that high return. To increase market share, the different investors start offering money with fewer strings attached (see This American Life’s “The Giant Pool of Money” for more detail). Now ridiculously poor judgments are being made and really poor loans are being made and sold into the secondary market.
Fannie and Freddie have lost much of their market share, dramatically, and feel the need to keep up with Wall Street. They have to compete in order to remain relevant and stable. This leads to the eventual conservatorship.
At a point near the beginning of 2006, the investors start to realize their mistakes. So, they accelerate and sophisticate the ways they hide their mistakes through multiple slicing and dicing of good and bad loans in their portfolios. The Urban Institute has a good description of just how incredible this all gets.
The hope is that the increase in home values will continue without pause and save everyone from their poor mistakes simply through inflation. It does not change lending behavior. The brokers have nothing to lose since they’re in and out of the process in a matter of days. Banks think they have nothing to lose because they sell their loans to Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street. Apparently, Wall Street feels invincible. It just continues to buy these bad loans despite the fact that anyone paying attention, with an iota of financial knowledge, can see this is about to crash hard.
Around the same time, the problem is beginning to get attention because middle class white folks are now beginning to feel the effects as they begin to fail to pay their adjustable rate mortgages.
House prices fail to increase at high rates, then begin to decline or stabilize. Fannie and Freddie can’t capitalize enough. The feds take them over. The reality is now unavoidable.
The secondary market collapses/implodes, especially Wall Street (Fannie and Freddie are essentially still in business). The banks can't sell their bad loans and haven't held on to enough good loans in their own portfolios because those were needed to hide the risks when selling to the secondary market.
We’re $700b short, or maybe its less than that. No one knows for sure because of the shell game upon shell game upon shell game that kept this all going for far too long.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Real School Choice
If John McCain is serious about school choice being a civil rights issue, perhaps he'd do well to revisit his party's longstanding efforts to ensure that public school districts remain segregated.
It was under the Nixon administration that the federal government fought busing programs and programs that made it possible for poor, minority, inner-city school kids to go to richer, whiter, suburban schools. The Nixon administration could have used its power to withhold Community Development Block Grant funds from municipalities, counties, and states that would not embrace affirmative measures. Instead they fought these measures and Republicans have made their resistance to regional, racial equality a hallmark of their policies ever since.
The Nixon administration even assisted with the fight against school integration in the (unfortunately) landmark case of Milliken v Bradley -- a direct attack on Brown v Board of Education.
Of course, this mentality has continued to today's Supreme Court in the recent school integration cases that included Justices Roberts and Alito -- the type of judges McCain says he wants on SCOTUS -- arguing against voluntary integration.
Here in the Chicago area, State Senator James Meeks used just this idea in his protest against unequal educational opportunities in the region.
The solution isn't to require poor people pay for private education while richer people get public education. It's to equalize the quality of education for everyone by removing the arbitrary barriers of school districts that perpetuate racial, ethnic, and income inequality.
It was under the Nixon administration that the federal government fought busing programs and programs that made it possible for poor, minority, inner-city school kids to go to richer, whiter, suburban schools. The Nixon administration could have used its power to withhold Community Development Block Grant funds from municipalities, counties, and states that would not embrace affirmative measures. Instead they fought these measures and Republicans have made their resistance to regional, racial equality a hallmark of their policies ever since.
The Nixon administration even assisted with the fight against school integration in the (unfortunately) landmark case of Milliken v Bradley -- a direct attack on Brown v Board of Education.
Of course, this mentality has continued to today's Supreme Court in the recent school integration cases that included Justices Roberts and Alito -- the type of judges McCain says he wants on SCOTUS -- arguing against voluntary integration.
Here in the Chicago area, State Senator James Meeks used just this idea in his protest against unequal educational opportunities in the region.
The solution isn't to require poor people pay for private education while richer people get public education. It's to equalize the quality of education for everyone by removing the arbitrary barriers of school districts that perpetuate racial, ethnic, and income inequality.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Fannie Mae Ends Declining Markets Policy
In just a few months, Fannie Mae has ended their declining markets policy in favor of a nationwide policy that requires reasonable down payments on loans regardless of geography. The policy is a win-win for Fannie and the fair housing community as it addresses both sound underwriting practices and fair lending concerns.
You can read Fannie Mae's press release here or this from Reuters.
update: Freddie Mac follows suit.
You can read Fannie Mae's press release here or this from Reuters.
update: Freddie Mac follows suit.
The State of Fair Housing 2008
This week, The Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance released its 2008 State of Fair Housing Report for the 6-County region. The report provides statistics on the frequency of discrimination complaints in the Chicago region and a narrative on the structure of segregation and inequality throughout the region.
It also includes a Blueprint for Change that recommends ways to foster integration, improve access to housing options, and promote sustainable development throughout the region.
You can view it here.
It also includes a Blueprint for Change that recommends ways to foster integration, improve access to housing options, and promote sustainable development throughout the region.
You can view it here.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Lebetter v. Goodyear and the Future of Civil Rights
In case you don't pay attention to civil rights, I'll give you the quick summary of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. Ms. Ledbetter worked for Goodyear a long time, decades actually. And, when she retired she became aware that she made about $6,000 less annually than her male cohorts. As this was the first she became aware of the disparity, she filed a complaint against Goodyear for the pay she didn't receive on the basis of pay equity.
No one disputes Ms. Ledbetter's qualities as an employee of Goodyear. She was a fine employee. But, the Supreme Court ruled against her claim because she filed it too long after the company violated her rights.
This ruling is due to what employment discrimination folks call "temporal proximity" -- in other words, was the complaint filed shortly after the alleged act of discrimination. Shortly is often considered within 90 days but can be even shorter in some cases. The problem with the Supreme Court's ruling is that temporal proximity is really aimed more at retaliatory actions and not, as in Ms. Ledbetter's case, systemic acts of discrimination. The Court is simply wrong in its ruling.
What's even worse is that with this ruling, the Court essentially said to employers, "You can discriminate against your employees as long as they don't find out in time."
Congress is attempting to amend the laws so that the EEOC and the courts will have to allow for longer periods for filing cases. The House passed an amendment to make the language fairer. Republicans are holding it back in the Senate. The President is promising to veto the bill.
No one disputes Ms. Ledbetter's qualities as an employee of Goodyear. She was a fine employee. But, the Supreme Court ruled against her claim because she filed it too long after the company violated her rights.
This ruling is due to what employment discrimination folks call "temporal proximity" -- in other words, was the complaint filed shortly after the alleged act of discrimination. Shortly is often considered within 90 days but can be even shorter in some cases. The problem with the Supreme Court's ruling is that temporal proximity is really aimed more at retaliatory actions and not, as in Ms. Ledbetter's case, systemic acts of discrimination. The Court is simply wrong in its ruling.
What's even worse is that with this ruling, the Court essentially said to employers, "You can discriminate against your employees as long as they don't find out in time."
Congress is attempting to amend the laws so that the EEOC and the courts will have to allow for longer periods for filing cases. The House passed an amendment to make the language fairer. Republicans are holding it back in the Senate. The President is promising to veto the bill.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Integration Makes the Tribune
The Chicago Tribune has written an article about integration and the Oak Park Regional Housing Center's new program opening a Berwyn Housing Center. The article features some quotes from me as the Executive Director.
As with all news articles, there is never enough space to thoroughly address everything. Because of this, there are two things I'd like to clarify:
1. The Housing Center has outstanding support from the community and few detractors. Yet, quotes from detractors are included while quotes from supporters are not.
2. The additional service area was never intended to have a detrimental effect on black families hoping to move to Oak Park. We provide, and always have provided, listings in Oak Park to all clients regardless of race.
In addition, we are aware of the barriers, including perceptual barriers, African Americans face when considering affirmative moves in other communities in the western suburbs. The second service area was established to assist black clients interested in those other suburbs.
As with all news articles, there is never enough space to thoroughly address everything. Because of this, there are two things I'd like to clarify:
1. The Housing Center has outstanding support from the community and few detractors. Yet, quotes from detractors are included while quotes from supporters are not.
2. The additional service area was never intended to have a detrimental effect on black families hoping to move to Oak Park. We provide, and always have provided, listings in Oak Park to all clients regardless of race.
In addition, we are aware of the barriers, including perceptual barriers, African Americans face when considering affirmative moves in other communities in the western suburbs. The second service area was established to assist black clients interested in those other suburbs.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Realizing Integration
I posted a very similar entry at From Poverty to Opportunity.
In July 6th's New York Times, David Brooks wrote a column that lamented the failures to integrate our society. In it, he suggests that we should give up on integration and accept that people want to live in a segregated society. It's a depressing read both for its suggestion and for the inaccuracies that Brooks uses to support it.
Brooks isn't alone in his thoughts. Many wonder why it is that we haven't integrated. They usually begin with the same premise. Since the civil rights movement guaranteed people the right to live wherever they want, they must be living apart because that is what they prefer.
This is counter to what most research shows. In actuality, people of all races express interests in living in diverse communities. People of color often express an interest to live in communities that have similar demographics to the regions they live in. Even whites, who express an interest in living in communities where they make up the majority, still indicate preferences to live in diverse neighborhoods. A recent example is the Chicago Area Study performed by professors Maria Krysan and Tyrone Foreman at the University of Illinois at Chicago that found this exact result.
Unfortunately, providing rights is not enough. In order to undo generations of segregation, we need programs that actively -- or as we say in the business, affirmatively -- further fair housing rights. In fact, the Fair Housing Act and many state human and civil rights acts have language explicitly stating that government has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Alas, HUD and its state equivalents frequently ignore this duty.
Meanwhile, real estate steering, linguistic profiling, and hate crimes are among many problems that continue to reinforce segregation.
The evidence shows that segregation itself perpetuates racial and ethnic inequality. This is something else Brooks fails to consider as he suggests that maybe segregation is just fine. The Chicago region is an excellent example of how patterns of racial segregation correlate almost exactly with patterns of opportunity*. In the 6-county area, 94% of African Americans and 83% of Latinos live in low-opportunity communities. This is roughly equivalent to the 86% of families in poverty that live in low-opportunity communities.
In these low-opportunity communities residents suffered from:
Simultaneously, high-opportunity communities continue to add jobs, improve schools, expand infrastructure, and offer lower taxes. Yet, while high-opportunity communities make up 40% of the region, they have very little affordable housing -- only 4% of the housing affordable to households making 30% of the area median income. Consequently, only 9% of those in poverty live in high-opportunity communities despite the fact that they make up 29% of the total population of the region.
The geography of segregation makes it easy to provide for some while denying others. As a result, it exacerbates every problem we face in America. Giving up on the dream of integration is essentially to give up on the dream of equality and the guarantee of basic human rights we all deserve.
see Lukehart, John et al., The Segregation of Opportunites
In July 6th's New York Times, David Brooks wrote a column that lamented the failures to integrate our society. In it, he suggests that we should give up on integration and accept that people want to live in a segregated society. It's a depressing read both for its suggestion and for the inaccuracies that Brooks uses to support it.
Brooks isn't alone in his thoughts. Many wonder why it is that we haven't integrated. They usually begin with the same premise. Since the civil rights movement guaranteed people the right to live wherever they want, they must be living apart because that is what they prefer.
This is counter to what most research shows. In actuality, people of all races express interests in living in diverse communities. People of color often express an interest to live in communities that have similar demographics to the regions they live in. Even whites, who express an interest in living in communities where they make up the majority, still indicate preferences to live in diverse neighborhoods. A recent example is the Chicago Area Study performed by professors Maria Krysan and Tyrone Foreman at the University of Illinois at Chicago that found this exact result.
Unfortunately, providing rights is not enough. In order to undo generations of segregation, we need programs that actively -- or as we say in the business, affirmatively -- further fair housing rights. In fact, the Fair Housing Act and many state human and civil rights acts have language explicitly stating that government has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Alas, HUD and its state equivalents frequently ignore this duty.
Meanwhile, real estate steering, linguistic profiling, and hate crimes are among many problems that continue to reinforce segregation.
The evidence shows that segregation itself perpetuates racial and ethnic inequality. This is something else Brooks fails to consider as he suggests that maybe segregation is just fine. The Chicago region is an excellent example of how patterns of racial segregation correlate almost exactly with patterns of opportunity*. In the 6-county area, 94% of African Americans and 83% of Latinos live in low-opportunity communities. This is roughly equivalent to the 86% of families in poverty that live in low-opportunity communities.
In these low-opportunity communities residents suffered from:
- fewer jobs and transportation options
- poorer schools
- higher crime
- less green space
- more pollution and health problems
- slower appreciation in housing values and older housing stock
- fewer day care slots
- reduced civic participation
Simultaneously, high-opportunity communities continue to add jobs, improve schools, expand infrastructure, and offer lower taxes. Yet, while high-opportunity communities make up 40% of the region, they have very little affordable housing -- only 4% of the housing affordable to households making 30% of the area median income. Consequently, only 9% of those in poverty live in high-opportunity communities despite the fact that they make up 29% of the total population of the region.
The geography of segregation makes it easy to provide for some while denying others. As a result, it exacerbates every problem we face in America. Giving up on the dream of integration is essentially to give up on the dream of equality and the guarantee of basic human rights we all deserve.
see Lukehart, John et al., The Segregation of Opportunites
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Affirmative Action part 1.5
Eric Alterman was kind enough to print a comment I made regarding Affirmative Action on his blog.
I'll try and get back to the Affirmative Action argument in a week or two.
I'll try and get back to the Affirmative Action argument in a week or two.
Monday, January 15, 2007
MLK Day 2007
This day is a good day to remind ourselves that The Dream has yet to be achieved. That discrimination still occurs. That segregation still determines the fate of so many. That the civil rights movement is still moving.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Leyland Talks Roster Management
I wish I would have read the articles by Jason Beck and Lynn Henning before I read the Detroit Tigers Weblog this morning. Billfer, who does the DTW, posted about the Leyland's ideas in the articles and and now I feel like I'd be ripping him off if I did the same. Well, maybe just a few thoughts will be okay. If you don’t like links, the content of the articles has three points Billfer commented on. First, Leyland is coming up with a contingency plan for the leadoff spot in case Granderson doesn’t make progress in cutting down on his strikeouts. The two other candidates in Leyland’s eyes are Polanco and Pudge. Leyland also said he was trying to figure out how to get Thames at bats, and thought of trying him out at first base to do so. Finally, facing a similar problem with Omar Infante, he said he’s thinking of giving him some time in the outfield – center field specifically.
As everyone mentions, the Pudge thing sounds nutty when you consider he walked less than forty times in the past two seasons. Everyone also mentions that he seems to adjust his approach when he’s in the leadoff spot, and I think I remember saying the same thing in a post after one of those games where he led off last season. Now if somebody could just talk him into taking that “leadoff approach” regardless of where he bats in the order.
I love the idea of expanding Thames’ and Infante’s roles to get them more at bats. The Thames thing is only surprising in that the idea hasn’t been tossed around before. In the Tigers’ defense, it’s a lot easier to try a guy at a new position in Spring Training than in the middle of a playoff run. The Infante idea is not surprising at all. The Tigers have talked about making him a super-sub in the past and outfield was discussed then as one of his possible responsibilities. I actually thought the Tigers might think of Infante as their fourth outfielder if and when they traded Thames or Monroe. Such a designation would have allowed them to keep him, Santiago and Perez all on the roster once one of those to were moved.
That brings me to an interesting sidebar that comes from all of this (I guess Billfer didn’t cover as many of my thoughts as I realized). I’ve talked quite a bit about the 2007 roster and who there is and isn’t room for. Well, to recap there are only four bench spots once you get past the pitching staff and the regulars. Vance Wilson is signed for the next two years, so he is a lock for one of them. Santiago is signed and I believe out of options, so he is another lock on the roster (why sign a guy for half a mil and then let him get snagged off waivers?). That leaves two spots for Neifi, Thames and Infante. Leyland specifically addressed ideas for using Thames and Infante in 2007 with no mention (at least in these articles) about Neifi. Could it be? Is there no future with the Tigers for Neifi? I love that idea almost as much as the ideas for getting Thames and Infante playing time. I am on board with getting rid of Neifi whether it’s a trade requiring the Tigers to eat his salary or just releasing him. Basically, I’d rather pay him $2.5M not to play on the Tigers than the alternative. The only other option I can think of – which would allow keeping all three on the 25 man roster - is going with an eleven man pitching staff. As I said before, I doubt that’s likely. I’ll keep you posted on what could be a promising development for the Tigers’ roster.
I wish I would have read the articles by Jason Beck and Lynn Henning before I read the Detroit Tigers Weblog this morning. Billfer, who does the DTW, posted about the Leyland's ideas in the articles and and now I feel like I'd be ripping him off if I did the same. Well, maybe just a few thoughts will be okay. If you don’t like links, the content of the articles has three points Billfer commented on. First, Leyland is coming up with a contingency plan for the leadoff spot in case Granderson doesn’t make progress in cutting down on his strikeouts. The two other candidates in Leyland’s eyes are Polanco and Pudge. Leyland also said he was trying to figure out how to get Thames at bats, and thought of trying him out at first base to do so. Finally, facing a similar problem with Omar Infante, he said he’s thinking of giving him some time in the outfield – center field specifically.
As everyone mentions, the Pudge thing sounds nutty when you consider he walked less than forty times in the past two seasons. Everyone also mentions that he seems to adjust his approach when he’s in the leadoff spot, and I think I remember saying the same thing in a post after one of those games where he led off last season. Now if somebody could just talk him into taking that “leadoff approach” regardless of where he bats in the order.
I love the idea of expanding Thames’ and Infante’s roles to get them more at bats. The Thames thing is only surprising in that the idea hasn’t been tossed around before. In the Tigers’ defense, it’s a lot easier to try a guy at a new position in Spring Training than in the middle of a playoff run. The Infante idea is not surprising at all. The Tigers have talked about making him a super-sub in the past and outfield was discussed then as one of his possible responsibilities. I actually thought the Tigers might think of Infante as their fourth outfielder if and when they traded Thames or Monroe. Such a designation would have allowed them to keep him, Santiago and Perez all on the roster once one of those to were moved.
That brings me to an interesting sidebar that comes from all of this (I guess Billfer didn’t cover as many of my thoughts as I realized). I’ve talked quite a bit about the 2007 roster and who there is and isn’t room for. Well, to recap there are only four bench spots once you get past the pitching staff and the regulars. Vance Wilson is signed for the next two years, so he is a lock for one of them. Santiago is signed and I believe out of options, so he is another lock on the roster (why sign a guy for half a mil and then let him get snagged off waivers?). That leaves two spots for Neifi, Thames and Infante. Leyland specifically addressed ideas for using Thames and Infante in 2007 with no mention (at least in these articles) about Neifi. Could it be? Is there no future with the Tigers for Neifi? I love that idea almost as much as the ideas for getting Thames and Infante playing time. I am on board with getting rid of Neifi whether it’s a trade requiring the Tigers to eat his salary or just releasing him. Basically, I’d rather pay him $2.5M not to play on the Tigers than the alternative. The only other option I can think of – which would allow keeping all three on the 25 man roster - is going with an eleven man pitching staff. As I said before, I doubt that’s likely. I’ll keep you posted on what could be a promising development for the Tigers’ roster.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Affirmative Action part 1
So, I hinted on the Weblog that I might do some posts on affirmative action here and, well, that's what I'm about to do. The issue is a hot topic now as the Supreme Court just heard cases on this subject. Dahlia Lithwick tells the story in Slate. There are plenty of other sources for comment as well.
I'm a firm believer in affirmative action and I think it is underutilized in today's America. I work in civil rights, fair housing specifically, and I know from my daily work that people of color, women, and people with disabilities do not have the same opportunities that their more privileged counterparts enjoy.
The Supreme Court case is about school desegregation. Unlike other forms of desegregation, racially mixed schools have been a high priority for government and community leaders ever since Brown 52 years ago. However, the history of school desegregation since Brown has largely been one of slow movement to integrate, followed by a serious Supreme Court setback against integration, followed by re-segregation to a point where predominantly minority schools are worse today than they were in 1954.
When Brown was decided, many southern school districts were the first targets of desegregation. However, segregated schools could be found throughout the nation. The primary difference being that southern states and cities had laws encouraging segregation while northern and midwestern states and cities simply had enforced housing patterns that created segregated school districts. The southern districts delayed integration as long as possible. Some never integrated until the 1980s. The northern districts took a long time too.
In Detroit, there was a case that made its way to the Supreme Court. Milliken v. Bradley dealt a huge blow to integration efforts. The narrow 5-4 decision declared that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," there could be no interjurisdictional remedy. This was a short-sighted ruling for a number of reasons. For one, it did not account for the "passive" resistance to integration of suburban communities (and their corresponding school districts). Also, it did not account for the fact that no real integration effort could be attained solely within the City of Detroit. Finally, it provided near-sovereignty to schools districts in a way that had never previously been given to local governments. The result was prototypical pattern of segregation that persisted throughout the 1970s and 1980s -- an urban/suburban dichotomy.
After Milliken, desegregation efforts were limited at best. For instance, Chicago Public Schools has a white population of less than 10% of its students. Whites have largely abandoned the public school system for private schools. Thus, even though CPS works toward desegregation, its best case scenario would be to have white students make up 8% of each school.
The pattern of segregation has changed a bit since the 1980s. Now, many suburban communities and school districts face the same dilemmas that Chicago faces. They have very small white populations. Worse, yet, they have very limited fiscal resources due to disinvestment from the business community. Meanwhile, their small populations make them ineligible for direct federal funding.
As a result, the current segregation in schools is worse than it ever has been. Meanwhile middle class minorities have had some success moving out of predominantly minority communities.
Thus, those minority school districts are also poor school districts.
The Louisville case is especially important here. Louisville has a metropolitan government. This should make Milliken's ban on interjurisdictional remedies irrelevant. But, in both cases, there needs to be some acceptance that because people have unequal opportunity due to their race, there necessarily needs to be corrective measures in place to provide equal opportunity to minorities and other protected persons.
I'm a firm believer in affirmative action and I think it is underutilized in today's America. I work in civil rights, fair housing specifically, and I know from my daily work that people of color, women, and people with disabilities do not have the same opportunities that their more privileged counterparts enjoy.
The Supreme Court case is about school desegregation. Unlike other forms of desegregation, racially mixed schools have been a high priority for government and community leaders ever since Brown 52 years ago. However, the history of school desegregation since Brown has largely been one of slow movement to integrate, followed by a serious Supreme Court setback against integration, followed by re-segregation to a point where predominantly minority schools are worse today than they were in 1954.
When Brown was decided, many southern school districts were the first targets of desegregation. However, segregated schools could be found throughout the nation. The primary difference being that southern states and cities had laws encouraging segregation while northern and midwestern states and cities simply had enforced housing patterns that created segregated school districts. The southern districts delayed integration as long as possible. Some never integrated until the 1980s. The northern districts took a long time too.
In Detroit, there was a case that made its way to the Supreme Court. Milliken v. Bradley dealt a huge blow to integration efforts. The narrow 5-4 decision declared that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," there could be no interjurisdictional remedy. This was a short-sighted ruling for a number of reasons. For one, it did not account for the "passive" resistance to integration of suburban communities (and their corresponding school districts). Also, it did not account for the fact that no real integration effort could be attained solely within the City of Detroit. Finally, it provided near-sovereignty to schools districts in a way that had never previously been given to local governments. The result was prototypical pattern of segregation that persisted throughout the 1970s and 1980s -- an urban/suburban dichotomy.
After Milliken, desegregation efforts were limited at best. For instance, Chicago Public Schools has a white population of less than 10% of its students. Whites have largely abandoned the public school system for private schools. Thus, even though CPS works toward desegregation, its best case scenario would be to have white students make up 8% of each school.
The pattern of segregation has changed a bit since the 1980s. Now, many suburban communities and school districts face the same dilemmas that Chicago faces. They have very small white populations. Worse, yet, they have very limited fiscal resources due to disinvestment from the business community. Meanwhile, their small populations make them ineligible for direct federal funding.
As a result, the current segregation in schools is worse than it ever has been. Meanwhile middle class minorities have had some success moving out of predominantly minority communities.
Thus, those minority school districts are also poor school districts.
The Louisville case is especially important here. Louisville has a metropolitan government. This should make Milliken's ban on interjurisdictional remedies irrelevant. But, in both cases, there needs to be some acceptance that because people have unequal opportunity due to their race, there necessarily needs to be corrective measures in place to provide equal opportunity to minorities and other protected persons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)