,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Voluntary compliance with civil rights isn't the issue.
Some people will voluntarily do the right thing.
The question is what do you do when people persist in discrimination either privately or at the local level.
Some people will voluntarily do the right thing.
The question is what do you do when people persist in discrimination either privately or at the local level.
When my mother moved to LA in 1960, people refused to sell her family a house because of racially-restrictive covenants.
This was 12 years after Shelley v. Kramer, which held enforcement of these covenants violated the 14th Amend. But *private* compliance was allowed.
This was 12 years after Shelley v. Kramer, which held enforcement of these covenants violated the 14th Amend. But *private* compliance was allowed.
My family had to buy an unencumbered piece of land, and my grandmother vowed to build the nicest house in Manhattan Beach.
It wasn't until 1968 with the passage of the Fair Housing Act, that discrimination in housing was outlawed.
It wasn't until 1968 with the passage of the Fair Housing Act, that discrimination in housing was outlawed.
But even today, even though voluntary compliance happens many places, there are still individuals who are not able to buy or rent houses because of their race, and must seek redress through the federal government.
Which is why the Obama Administration, and specifically @JulianCastro took the step of recognizing implicit bias in housing discrimination where policies have a disparate impact on communities of color.
citylab.com/equity/2016/12…
Trump & Ben Carson are trying to roll it back.
citylab.com/equity/2016/12…
Trump & Ben Carson are trying to roll it back.
The question is, should you use the powers of the federal government to right the wrongs of discrimination if local communities choose to continue segregated patterns of schools, housing, or employment discrimination? Or do you let the discrimination stand? #ThisWillNotStand
