Neighborhoods with a large population of African Americans and other people of color typically received the lowest ratings and were deemed too risky to secure government-backed mortgages. In particular, the Neighborhood Composition Rule required housing projects not to alter the racial character of their surrounding neighborhoods.
The segregative patterns thus institutionalized were reinforced by the Housing Act of , which introduced the enactment of the first major public housing program. Local housing authorities had discretionary control over where they would develop public housing projects and who those projects would target.
This early public housing effort received intense public opposition, especially from the National Association of Real Estate Boards. As a concession to opponents of public housing, the so-called equivalent elimination rule contained in the Housing Act required housing authorities to eliminate a substandard dwelling unit for each new unit of public housing built.
In order to not interfere with the private housing market, public housing was not to increase the overall supply of housing. As a result, public housing projects were built predominantly in inner-city locations to replace preexisting slums and thus helped contain African American and other minority neighborhoods. The two-tier approach to housing policy was consolidated in the postwar years, when the demand for new housing prompted the federal government to buttress existing programs and design new ones.
These programs played a key role in the solidification of racially segregated neighborhoods. These programs denied credit to inner-city communities of color, served predominantly white buyers, and spurred white flight and suburbanization. As a result of the program, however, entire black neighborhoods in close proximity to key white neighborhoods and institutions—such as newly planned universities and hospital complexes—were bulldozed, and massive public housing projects were built in order to contain displaced black residents.
The Fair Housing Act of was the first open-house legislation designed to right the wrongs of the racially biased laws and policies that had purposefully created segregated communities across the United States. Specifically, the law prohibited housing discrimination in public and private housing transactions.
The law also required the federal government to administer all federal housing and community development programs in a manner that would affirmatively further the fair housing purposes of the act. In addition, the law provided for enforcement actions brought by the U. Department of Justice DOJ and for private causes of actions in federal court to individual victims of housing discrimination. The law was passed at a time of significant turmoil, as cities around the nation were experiencing a wave of race-related unrest due to longstanding discrimination against African Americans.
President Lyndon Johnson had already attempted to introduce fair housing legislation in Martin Luther King Jr. Rushed negotiations and significant compromise largely shaped the final statute. It also included an exemption according to which a dwelling was not covered by the statute if it had fewer than five rental units and its owner lived in one of them.
Most importantly, the legislation lacked critical enforcement provisions. Civil penalties were missing, and HUD did not have any cease and desist powers to temporarily hold a housing unit off the market during a conciliation process. The amendments added two new protected classes—disability and familial status—created a new administrative complaint process, and enhanced the penalties that came with violating the Fair Housing Act.
In , the U. Inclusive Communities Project Inc. The AFFH rule provided HUD program participants with a tool for analyzing local and regional fair housing issues and identifying patterns of segregation and access to opportunity.
Some progress in achieving integration and combating discrimination has been made since the passage of the Federal Housing Act. For example, there is greater black-white integration today compared with in Douglas S.
Massey and Jonathan Tannen indicate that in , immediately following the passage of the Fair Housing Act, nearly half of the black population in the United States resided in 1 of 40 hypersegregated metropolitan areas. Denton 38 —occurs when a racial or ethnic group is highly segregated on at least 4 of 5 dimensions of segregation, including unevenness, isolation, clustering, concentration, and centralization.
These include Baltimore and Chicago, among other cities. The root causes of residential segregation have been and continue to be widely explored and debated in scholarly studies. Some argue that residential segregation is the result of nonracial demographic and socioeconomic circumstances, whereas others attribute the separation of racial groups in the residential landscape to racist attitudes and practices such as prejudice and discrimination in the housing market.
As a series of national housing discrimination studies that the Urban Institute conducted for HUD indicate, the most overt forms of housing discrimination have declined over the course of the past few decades. New forms of racial bias in housing have thus emerged. Racial steering, for instance, has become more common. Under this practice, real estate agents deliberately steer African Americans away from desirable neighborhoods and toward areas featuring larger concentrations of people of color, higher poverty levels, and lower housing quality compared with neighborhoods to where whites relocate.
In addition, black homebuyers are 2. Furthermore, the neighborhoods where white homebuyers are recommended and shown homes tend to be characterized by a larger presence of white residents than the neighborhoods where black homebuyers are recommended and shown homes.
In particular, with the proliferation of social media and online housing advertising, discriminatory digital marketing has become more common. As a result of the litigation, in March , Facebook agreed to stop allowing landlords, creditors, and employers, among other advertisers, to discriminate against people of color and other protected classes.
The forms of discrimination against home mortgage applicants that were prevalent before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of and the Community Reinvestment Act of have similarly diminished but have not disappeared, shifting from the outright denial of mortgages to potential borrowers of color to predatory practices, subprime lending, and unfavorable loan terms. Recent evidence shows that financial technology lenders typically charge borrowers of color eight basis points higher interest rates than they charge white borrowers.
Discrimination in the housing market reinforces the patterns of residential segregation that have been largely shaped by decades of racially biased housing policies. Most importantly, housing discrimination and residential segregation hamper the ability of African American homebuyers to build equity. Homes in primarily African American neighborhoods typically feature more volatile demand and prices than those in predominantly white areas, where resources such as access to well-paying jobs and quality schools are concentrated and contribute to higher housing demand and prices.
Research shows that, even after taking housing characteristics into consideration, homes in neighborhoods where there is a large concentration of African Americans as well as neighborhoods that are racially transitioning typically are worth less and appreciate at a lower rate than those in predominantly white neighborhoods. As homebuyers tend to look for housing options in communities where they anticipate greater capital gains, discrimination and low housing appreciation disproportionately harm largely black neighborhoods.
This vicious cycle puts African Americans at a disadvantage in their ability to build equity and accumulate wealth. Mortgage data show that while lending to African American borrowers has continued to expand after the housing crash of , harmful segregation patterns persist.
Similar to prerecession years, African American borrowers still predominantly buy homes in neighborhoods with large populations of people of color. Across the United States, for example, 44 percent of the population in neighborhoods where high-income black borrowers concentrate consist of people of color, compared with 22 percent of the population in neighborhoods sought by high-income white homebuyers. Seventy-five percent of black borrowers and 88 percent of white borrowers, respectively, buy their homes in moderate- and high-income neighborhoods.
Forty-one percent of the population in moderate- and high-income neighborhoods where high-income black homebuyers purchase a home consists of people of color, compared with just 21 percent in moderate- and high-income neighborhoods where white high-income borrowers reside.
Furthermore, 16 percent of the population in high-income census tracts where high-income black borrowers purchase their homes is black, compared with only 5 percent of the population in high-income census tracts attracting high-income white homebuyers. African American home mortgage borrowers continue buying homes in neighborhoods where homes have depreciated or have appreciated at a slower pace compared with those in neighborhoods where white homebuyers live.
Table 1 shows that, on average, the neighborhoods where African American borrowers bought their homes during the housing boom from to feature prices that are still lower than those before the financial crisis. In , home prices in these neighborhoods were 7 percent lower than in In contrast, home prices in neighborhoods where average white homebuyers purchased their homes during the same period have recovered; they increased by 2 percent between and Most broadly, racial disparities in home appreciation have persisted nationally even in the aftermath of the Great Recession, despite a general increase in home prices.
Home prices in census tracts attracting white homeowners, in contrast, have increased by 3 percent. This section considers the six metropolitan areas with the largest volume of home mortgage loans to African American borrowers: Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Washington, D. These areas feature a larger black population compared with the national average of 13 percent. In Atlanta, Baltimore, and Washington, D. Only 15 percent of all home mortgage loans, however, have gone to black borrowers in the years after the Great Recession, in contrast to the 60 percent of total loans that have gone to white borrowers.
Despite a decrease in segregation levels during the past three decades, 79 African Americans in these metropolitan areas are still highly segregated from non-Hispanic whites. Standard measures of residential segregation 80 show that well more than half of the African American population in these metropolitan areas—from 57 percent in Dallas to 75 percent in Chicago—would have to live in a different neighborhood in their metropolitan areas in order to achieve a more dispersed geographic distribution and less separation from white residents.
Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision such as the victim being fired or demoted.
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer. An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business.
For example, a "no-beard" employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps. Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.
It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Newsletters Donate My Account. Research Topics. Blacks and whites disagree on major factors holding black people back When asked about reasons that black people in the U. Most Americans say individual, rather than institutional, racism is the bigger problem for blacks On balance, many more Americans say that, when it comes to discrimination against blacks in the U.
Blacks more likely than whites to see unfair treatment in the country and where they live Across many realms of American life — including in dealing with the police, in the courts, when voting, in the workplace, when applying for a loan or mortgage, and in stores or restaurants — black adults are consistently more likely than whites to say blacks are treated less fairly, both in the communities where they live and in the country as a whole.
Next: 4. Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U. Roughly half of Hispanics have experienced discrimination.
0コメント