Category Archives: Racial Equality

Disparate Impact

Nearly every day of the Trump II presidency provides another indisputable example of the White nationalism that fuels MAGA. The most recent example is the Justice Department’s elimination of its “disparate impact” regulations: As Politico has reported, “The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to end long-standing civil rights policies that prohibit local governments and organizations that receive federal funding from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color,” 

So what, you might ask, is “disparate impact”?

Disparate impact is a term describing practices that are facially neutral—in other words, practices or laws that do not explicitly discriminate—but that fall more harshly on a minority or disfavored group and can’t be justified by business or governmental necessity. 

Let’s say a rural county has a rule that, in order to become a licensed carpenter–one of the better jobs in that county– someone must be a high school graduate and weigh at least 180 pounds. Neutral, right? Except that in that county, Blacks are less likely to have completed high school, and women are far less likely to weigh at least 180 pounds. Proponents of the rule defend it by explaining that carpenters must be able to read plans and must be able to pick up at least 40 pounds of lumber.

Rather obviously, the rules mandating high school graduation and 180 pounds are ill-suited (at best) to ensure applicants will meet those goals. If that was really the (entirely appropriate) reason for imposing restrictions, applicants for licensure would be tested to see if they could read plans and asked to demonstrate their ability to heft the required pounds of lumber. Even if the discriminatory impact of the rules wasn’t due to intentional discrimination, their impact was clearly discriminatory. 

Allegations of intentional discrimination can be hard to prove. In my made-up example (based on an old case), absent probative evidence that the people creating the rules had intended to make it difficult for women and Black folks to become carpenters, a lawsuit alleging discrimination would fail.  The ability to base one’s case on a demonstration of the real-world effects of such rules, and the existence of reasonable alternatives better suited to the purported goals, would be far more likely to succeed. 

Which is why our racist and misogynist administration wants to go back to a time when it was necessary to prove intent.

The Department of Justice made the change in order to comply with one of Trump’s numerous executive orders. In an April Order, he explicitly called for an end to disparate-impact liability for discrimination and ordered federal agencies to stop enforcement of anti-discrimination laws based on disparate impact theories. 

The disparate impact rule has been in effect for over fifty years. It was based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was firmly established in 1971, in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Duke Power–the employer– required applicants to have a high school diploma and to take aptitude tests for certain jobs, requirements that were demonstrably not job-related and that disproportionately excluded Black applicants. The Supreme Court in that case held that Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”

As Politico reported,

The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to end long-standing civil rights policies that prohibit local governments and organizations that receive federal funding from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color.

Repealing the government’s 50-year-old “disparate impact” standards will make it harder to challenge potential bias in housing, criminal law, employment, environmental regulations and other policy areas.

Making it harder to challenge discrimination–making it easier to keep those “Others” in subservient positions– is both the basis of Trump’s support and the over-riding purpose of this profoundly unAmerican administration. 

I’d say “for shame!” if the horrible people in this administration were capable of feeling anything akin to shame–or even embarrassment.

Comments

Those Neglected Issues

It isn’t simply that our attention is consumed by the daily obscenities of the Trump administration–the increasingly overt and unapologetic racism, the economic damage, the assaults on the rule of law. Reeling from the daily headlines and trying to stem the progress of MAGA’s anti-Americanism takes up most of our policy bandwidth, meaning that we neglect the large number of important issues that we ought to be addressing.

One of those issues is America’s housing crisis.

I have previously posted about various elements of that housing crisis--including out-of-state buyers of homes (My own city, Indianapolis, is now first in the nation for out-of-state ownership of rental property, but such ownership is a real problem in most cities.) More recently, I’ve posted about the escalating rate of evictions, also acute locally, and about the laudable effort by the genuinely religious folks in GIMA-The Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance– to provide permanent housing and supportive services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness through the Streets to Homes initiative.

Local efforts are important, but housing problems are national. A recent article in The Atlantic took an in-depth look at the extent to which private equity has changed the housing market.The article begins with a recitation of the problem: the country is short by approximately 4 million housing units, and the shortage is most severe in areas like starter homes, moderately priced apartments in low-rises, and family-friendly dwellings.  Among the increasing numbers of Americans who are renting, half of them are spending more than a third of their income on shelter, and in numerous markets, wages are insufficient to cover the rent of a two-bedroom apartment.

It isn’t just private equity, of course. Multiple factors contribute to the housing crisis, including but not limited to restrictive zoning codes, excessively bureaucratic permitting processes, and the escalating costs of labor and building materials. But the problem has been significantly aggravated by the aggressive entry of private equity into the housing market. As the article reports, “Institutional investors have bought up hundreds of thousands of American homes since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, outbidding families and pushing up rents.”

And it matters.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Center for Geospatial Solutions published a report showing that corporations now own a remarkable one in 11 residential real-estate parcels in the 500 urban counties with data robust enough to analyze. In some communities, they control more than 20 percent of properties….These investors are pouring the most money into “buy low, rent high” neighborhoods: communities, many of them in the South and the Rust Belt, where large shares of families can’t afford a mortgage.

These private equity firms are buying up huge numbers of starter homes in low-income, minority neighborhoods, intensifying America’s racial wealth and homeownership gaps. The article notes that, in Cleveland, corporations own 17.5 percent of residential real-estate parcels, primarily in low-income areas. In the city’s predominantly Black neighborhoods, just one in five homebuyers in 2021 took out a mortgage, and in 2022, owner-occupants made just 13 percent of purchases. In a nearby majority-white neighborhood, owner-occupants bought more than 80 percent of homes that same year. In affluent White neighborhoods,  out-of-state corporations owned less than 1 percent of residential parcels.

Private equity isn’t to blame for high housing costs in desirable cities and neighborhoods, but it is distorting markets in low income communities, and pushing thousands of Black and Latino families off the property ladder. And to add insult to injury, renters of these investment properties often find that corporate owners are more prone to skimping on maintenance and upkeep and quicker to evict their tenants than local, individual owners.

Policymakers have advanced a variety of proposals to address the problem. Washington State is debating a proposal to cap the number of units that a corporation can own, but that approach would simply invite investors to set up multiple entities to purchase properties. Other policymakers suggest classifying firms that own more than 10 properties in a given jurisdiction as commercial owners, subjecting them to higher property-tax rates and higher taxes on their capital gains, but there are obvious “work-arounds” to that approach as well.

The most straightforward remedy would be a dramatic expansion of the country’s housing stock–especially the supply of affordable housing. During the presidential campaign, Kamala Harris released a detailed plan to improve housing affordability and increase housing supply, but voters chose to ignore boring proposals aimed at ameliorating real problems, instead choosing to install a bloviating ignoramus who gave them permission to publicly express their bigotries.

I wonder if We the People have learned our lesson…

Comments

It’s Not Your Fault…

Heather Cox Richardson recently explored the success of Trump’s “sales pitch,” which she attributed to his ability to leverage a belief in the victimization of White folks that Republicans have increasingly embraced since the 1980s. As she put it, the message boiled down to “the reason certain white Americans were being left behind in the modern world was not that Republican policies had transferred more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%, but that lazy and undeserving Black and Brown Americans and women were taking handouts from the government rather than working.”

I think this is exactly right.

After all, as a man and a candidate, Trump is repulsive. His “policies” are laughable when they aren’t appalling, raising the question why anyone would support him. Political scholarship has answered that question by linking his ability to generate votes to “racial resentment,” and that link becomes more obvious every time he talks about “shithole” countries, calls Black immigrants “garbage,” or attacks “woke-ism” or DEI. But it isn’t just race–Trump and MAGA have built their appeal on resentment of every American who isn’t a White Christian male: the “uppity” women who’ve forgotten their proper role, the LGBTQ+ folks who had the nerve to open the closet door, Jews and Muslims. Etc.

The base of the appeal, as the Richardson quote suggests, is the festering anger of victimhood. There are thousands of White “Christian” nationalists whose lives haven’t gone the way they wanted or intended. Perhaps it’s that they haven’t accumulated the wealth they once thought they’d enjoy, or generated the admiration or applause or familial love to which they felt entitled. Perhaps they’re among the self-described Incels. 

We have all encountered people nursing these grievances. Sometimes, their complaints are very understandable; other times,  disconnected from their public-facing financial or social positions. Whatever these White “Christian” men feel is missing, whatever the nature of the deeply-felt disappointment, their lives aren’t providing something to which they feel entitled. Not only do they resent the fact that their lives have failed to meet their expectations, they need to believe that–whatever it is–it simply cannot be their own fault. 

They need to see themselves as victims. 

Scholars who have explored the concept of “white victimhood” describe it as a belief that, in today’s America, white people–especially White Christian men– are being systematically disadvantaged, a belief that is then used to justify racial animus and extremist ideologies. It’s sometimes described as “competitive victimhood.” It isn’t related to actual discrimination or oppression; rather, it’s in reaction to a perceived threat: that women and minorities are eroding the historically dominant status accorded to White Christian men in American society. 
 
Weaponizing victimhood may be Trump’s one true talent. As an article from Medium put it,

In the history of American political speech, few phenomena have been as widespread (or as damaging) as Donald Trump’s systematic creation of victimhood stories. From his accusations of “witch hunts” to his depiction of America as a nation “raped” by foreign powers, Trump has turned the language of suffering into a powerful tool for political rallying and authoritarian control. Recent academic research shows that this is not just another example of political exaggeration, but a sophisticated tactic now known as “strategic victimhood”: a deliberate performance intended to justify retaliation, weaken democratic institutions, and strengthen his hold on power.

The bottom line: Trump’s victimhood rhetoric is more than just political theater. It is what researchers refer to as an “anti-democratic, coercive, and illiberal” strategy that both predicts and fosters authoritarian rule, with significant implications for American democracy and social cohesion.

An article in Salon traced the connection between “winning and whining.” 

The article began by questioning how a “once-proud party of masculine self-reliance and personal responsibility” had become “such a bunch of whiny snowflakes?” and reviewed the findings of an academic paper by Miles Armaly and Adam Enders, titled “‘Why Me?’ The Role of Perceived Victimhood in American Politics.”  The authors concluded that feelings of victimhood did explain various (otherwise unfounded) “views of government, society and the world. They found it was especially explanatory with regard to perceived corruption and conspiratorial thinking, and that it was linked to personality traits such as narcissism and a sense of entitlement.

As the article from Medium put it, Trump and MAGA weaponize the grievances by giving these “victims” people to blame– those “others” who are stealing the social status of White “Christian” men.

It explains a lot.

Comments

The Real Identity Politics

One of the many things that exasperate me about what currently passes for political dialogue is the substitution of labels for efforts to communicate. (And yes, I find myself engaging in that practice from time to time–it’s easier to call the administration “fascist” than to carefully describe the behaviors that lead me to affix that label. Mea culpa.)

Although people on all sides of the political divide indulge in this dismissive exchange of epithets, there’s one particularly dishonest label that is increasingly employed by MAGA and the Right: Identity politics. The accusation is a companion to the “woke” label and the persistent attacks on DEI and similar efforts meant to erase the bigotries that have made life more difficult for women and minorities.

If there is one tactic that the MAGA movement has perfected, it is calling out its opponents for behaviors that are actually its own. A recent article from the New Republic pointed out that it is the Right, not the Left or Center Left, that is consistently engaged in “identity politics.”  The article was a conversation with Kimberle Crenshaw, a noted scholar of America’s various forms of bigotry and their interrelationship.

Crenshaw began by discussing the anti-Black animus that is the core of Trump’s agenda and appeal–an animus that has become too obvious for the rest of us to ignore–and the way in which anti-Black and anti-woman bias worked to defeat Kamala Harris.

I found one observation especially “on target,” because it gets to the root of the way labeling often deflects reality. Crenshaw points out that when the Right screams “identity politics” it defines identity politics in “terms of women, queer people, and Black folks.”

When Trump and MAGA world say things like, If you want to get anything done, you have to put white men in charge, they don’t call that identity politics. When they take all the books off the shelves that they think are about identity politics and leave Mein Kampf on the shelves at the Naval Academy, that’s identity politics that they don’t talk about. So the identity politics that is at the core of the anxiety that MAGA builds itself into is never named.

So it’s clear that there’s a particular kind of identity politics that they are willing to wrap themselves in. And that’s an old-school, long part of the American faction that wanted to think about the United States as a white, male, Christian country, which has now shown up in white Christian nationalism. That is the identity politics of the moment.

It is in pursuit of protecting the prerogatives of that identity–White Christian male identity–that MAGA and the Trump administration are attacking any and all efforts to promote equity in what is, despite their hysterical denials, a multiracial society.

That is their identity politics now. It’s called the assault on improper ideology. And if you want to see what it looks like in real time, look at their assault on DEI. The assault on DEI is basically if people of color, if women, if any people who don’t look like us, are in any way involved in something that is bad, we can say that they are the fault of it.

And what does that mean? If you happen to be the mayor of Baltimore when a ship collides into your bridge, because you’re Black and you are there, we can pin the responsibility on you. If there’s an air disaster over Washington, D.C., we can pin it on DEI. No proof, no nothing. All we have to do is claim it.

When I read this, my first thought was “of course! Why didn’t I see this before?” When I thought about that question–why I hadn’t recognized the real identity politics–I had to (grudgingly) give the Right credit for learning the lessons taught years ago by Frank Luntz and first employed by Newt Gingrich.

Luntz advocated using vocabulary that was carefully crafted to produce a desired political effect (an effect that didn’t include descriptive accuracy). He counseled GOP strategists to use the term death tax instead of estate tax, for example. Luntz has described his specialty as “finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”

I don’t know whether Luntz was personally involved in the (mis)use of the term “identity politics,” but that tactic–accusing opponents of something you yourself are doing–certainly bears his hallmark.

And that hallmark is misdirection, not communication. 

Comments

The Kids Are All Right

Complaining about the younger generation has been a part of human discourse since Athenians were bemoaning Socrates’  “corruption” of that city’s youth, and it has been a consistent theme ever since. Young folks these days are routinely accused of lack of seriousness, addiction to technology, and a wide variety of other behaviors considered deficits by their cranky elders.

Admittedly, when it has come to their participation in electoral politics, the criticisms have been more legitimate. And recently, evidence of the neo-Nazi tendencies of younger Republican males has been disquieting, to say the least–its hard to avoid wondering just how widespread those very unAmerican sentiments are. My own experience with young Americans over some 21 years in a college classroom was overwhelmingly positive, but as the saying goes, anecdotes are not data, so it was refreshing to come across credible data that supported my own observations.

The New Republic recently published an article headlined “The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great.” The subhead was “Stop panicking: They are the most progressive generation ever, especially on race. If that surprises you, you’ve been listening to the wrong story.”

The article led with acknowledgement that the reigning story is far more negative: Democratic pundits are convinced that young Americans, especially white men, are being “red-pilled,” especially on matters of race, and that their increasing bigotry jeopardizes not just racial progress but also Democratic Party gains among young people.

The data doesn’t support that gloomy conviction. As the linked article reported, Gen Z voted overwhelmingly for Zohran Mamdani in New York, and for Democrats like Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia.

These Gen Z landslides for Democrats may have been a surprise to some, but not for us. Well before the election, the data was already telling a different—and far more hopeful—story about the politics of Gen Z. In surveys from over 60,000 Americans in the 2024 Cooperative Election Study, the gold standard for political research, a clear pattern emerges: Racial resentment is collapsing among young people.

Scholars differ on the question whether “racial resentment” is equivalent to full-blown racism, although most observers would have trouble distinguishing between the two. In any event, there is broad agreement that an individual’s level of racial resentment is predictive of how that individual will vote.

In predicting who votes for or against Trump, racial resentment is one of the most powerful variables out there—more predictive than income, gender, education, geography, or attitudes about economic policy, gender, or religious traditionalism. In short, scoring high on racial resentment means you’re virtually certain to vote for Trump, whereas scoring low means you’re basically certain to vote against him. And among young Americans, racial resentment is at historic lows.

Indeed, the data shows that Gen Z has the lowest level of racial resentment of any generation ever studied.

That said, the evidence of young Republicans’ bigotry isn’t wrong. The data also shows that young Republicans “remain nearly as racially resentful as older Republicans.”  The massive shifts researchers have found are seen among Democrats and independents–and those young independents “now look more like Democrats than like older independents, or Republicans, for that matter.”

The Republican Party maintains its base through consistent racial attitudes across generations, but that base is shrinking. Meanwhile, everyone else is moving left on race. The center isn’t drifting right; young people are redefining where the center sits.

Why is there so much misunderstanding of Gen Z?

There’s motivated reasoning everywhere. Conservatives want to believe they’re winning the youth. Centrist Democrats want to believe the party needs to move right. Pessimistic progressives want to believe we’re doomed. Political consultants want a reason to sell their clients on new, expensive advertising markets. Everyone finds anecdotes that confirm their assumptions while ignoring mountains of contradictory data.

What about democratic participation? Attitudes don’t mean much without electoral turnout. Happily, the news there is equally promising. In the wake of the off-year elections, Newsweek reported on what it characterized as “a growing generational realignment: voters under 30 — who turned out in unusually high numbers — overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates.”

Trump and MAGA have placed their bets on Americans’ continuing racism. The data shows that is a losing bet, because the kids are all right.

Comments