Is There a Segregation Based on Race and Ethnicity in the United States - Research Paper Example

Is there a segregation based on race and ethni in the United s? The 1964 civil rights act illegalized employment segregation and segregation based on race, ethnicity, or gender in the United States (Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2006, p. 565). The work of Tomaskovic et al (2006) has been successful in documenting segregation in workplaces by race, ethnicity, and sex from 1966 to 2003. Based on data produced by several studies, Tomaskovic et al. (2006, p. 567) concluded segregation changed only very slightly from 1960 to 1970, dramatically declined from 1970 and 1980, did not change or changed very little between 1980 and 1990, began a linear decline from 1970 to 1990. Has segregation on housing based on race or ethnicity persisted since the civil rights movement of the 1960s? Gotham (2000, p. 13) found out that while housing subsidy housing programs created a situation for a great number of white families to buy “new” housing units in suburban areas, African American families were only able to buy “existing” homes in “racially transitional neighborhoods” in the inner city. Gotham (2000, p. 13) interpreted his data to mean that his research corroborated research that showed that the “market-centered” focus of federal housing policy has created obstacles to the “ability of African Americans to accumulate wealth through home ownership and reinforced racially segregate housing patterns.” For Gotham, the culprit is Section 235 of the 1968 Housing Act that “was designed to shift the focus of federal housing policy away from dispensing aid to local housing authorities for building public housing to providing direct supply-side subsidies to the private sector to stimulate home ownership for nonwhites and the poor” (2000, p. 13). Taking off from the work of Oliver and Shapiro (1995), Gotham argued (2000, p. 14) that the operation and implementation of the United States 1968 housing program is an example of the “racialization of state policy.” Citing the study of Massey and Denton (1993), Gotham (2000, p. 15) specifically pointed out Kansas City as one of the United States’ prime examples of “hypersegregated metropolitan areas due to the high degree of segregation in housing patterns on a range of indices.” Gotham (2000, p. 16) blames the “segregative effects of federal housing policies and programs, and private real estate activity” for the hypersegregation. In addition, Gotham said (2000, p. 17) “the various economic and political dimension of housing-related activities have been conducted through an organized and interconnected system of racial discrimination.” At the same time, Gotham (2000, p. 17) also pointed out racial discrimination was “somewhat different than it was decades ago.” This is because state and federal laws had made “official discrimination illegal and a few African American families now live, or have tried to reside, in historically white neighborhoods in almost all US cities (citing several studies, Gotham 2000, p. 17). Yet, Gotham 2000 (p. 17) pointed out that a number of scholars have identified the existence of a “dual housing market in the U.S. cities where racial minorities (especially African Americans) are served by a different set of housing and real estate practices than are whites.” Gotham (2000, p. 17) also pointed out that “housing prices and rents are generally higher for African than whites (even when income is controlled for), and that conventional loans for home purchases and remodeling are available to whites while African Americans are forced to buy with cash, on contract, or through federal loan programs.” Further, Gotham (2000, p. 18) criticized that “a vast array of housing data indicates that whites are the overwhelming beneficiaries of single-family suburban housing, while African Americans and other racial minorities are likely to be restricted to multifamily projects, conventional housing units, and deteriorating and substandard housing in inner cities.” According to Gotham (2000, p. 18), one result of the “racially unequal housing market is that African Americans and whites face different structures of investment opportunity, and educational and employment opportunities---all of which have been affected historically by federal housing policies and tax subsidies.” Gotham (2000, p. 18) argued that, “while private land-use actors such as builders and developers, real estate brokers, and mortgage lenders make crucial decisions regarding where housing will be built and for whom, it is state activity at all levels that circumscribes and conditions private-use land-use actions and decisions, as well as channeling urban investment and disinvestment into some areas rather than others.” Moreover, Gotham argued that the role of the federal government in housing segregation in the US can be traced much earlier than the 1968 Housing Act. According to Gotham (2000), segregation based on race and ethnicity in US housing can even to the creation o the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) through the Housing Act of 1934. The creation of the FHA marked the beginning of federal involvement in housing as well as the role of the federal government in segregating US housing based on race and ethnicity (Gotham 2000, p. 18-19). According to Gotham (2000, p. 19), several studies have exposed that the Federal Housing Underwriting Manuals of 1936, 1938, 1946, and 1952 have warnings “not to insure mortgages in homes unless they are located in ‘racially homogenous’ white neighborhoods, and removed blighting influences such as poor schools and older neighborhoods.” Several studies also show that the federal housing policies made sure that neighborhoods that are to be insured are those that the not have adverse influences like “inharmonious racial groups” (Gotham 2000, p. 19). Gotham (2000, p. 19) asserted that the “FHA helped institutionalize a racially separate and unequal system of home financing that favored suburban building for whites while precluding insurance for homes in racially mixed and nonwhite neighborhoods in the inner city.” The FHA had been alerting land developers and realtors that stability of neighborhoods is dependent in social and racial homogeneity (Gotham 2000, p. 19). Further, according to Gotham (2000, p. 19), the Federal Housing Authority of 1939 even explicitly pointed out that neighborhoods should continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes and changes will lead to instability and reduction of real estate values. The FHA had also warned realtors that they should never be instrumental in introducing into any neighborhood members of any race or nationality whose presence can be detrimental to property values (Gotham 2000, p. 19). According to Gotham (2000, p. 19), “agency officials, realtors, land developers, banks, and appraisers all embraced the belief that the highest appraisal value goes to homes in all-white neighborhoods, with descending values to homes in racially mixed neighborhoods, with all-black neighborhoods being at the bottom.” According to Gotham (2000, p. 19), “although the FHA removed explicitly racist language form its manuals in the 1950s, private appraisal associations continued to use such language through the 1970s.” As a result, Gotham said (2000, p. 20) housing and lending practices continued to discriminate and segregate based on race (and ethnicity) several decades after World War II. In 1948, the US Supreme Court outlawed the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants and civil rights legislations in the 1960s required the Federal Housing Authority “to cease its discriminatory practices.” However, Gotham (2000, p. 20) argued that although the FHA “had supposedly adopted ‘racially neutral’ policies during the 1950s and later, the agency continued to stress the value of racially homogenous neighborhoods and refused to take affirmative steps to ameliorate residential segregation.” As a direct result of the civil rights movements, the 1968 Housing Act moved the focus of federal housing policy from aid to local housing authorities for housing into providing “direct supply-side subsidies to the private sector” to promote home ownership for the poor (Gotham 2000, p. 21). Despite this, according to Gotham (2000), segregation in housing continued. A study of the US Commission on Civil Rights of 1971 found that the 1968 Housing Act continued to perpetuate segregation based on race (Gotham 2000, p. 23). In particular, the Commission found that “most of the new Section 235 units were being built in the suburbs and were being purchased by white buyers, while most existing and substantially rehabilitated units located in racially transitional areas were being purchased by minority buyers” (Gotham 2000, p. 23). Gotham (2000, p. 24) argued that from the Department of Urban Development provides evidence of segregation based on race. Gotham (2000, p. 24) reported that based on the US Department of Urban Development data, 80.1% of white families who participated in the housing program under the 1968 Housing Act bought new homes. In contrast, 90.41% of African families purchased existing existing homes, located primarily in the central Kansas City. For Gotham (2000, p. 23), the data supports the view that federal housing policies continued to be discriminatory and segregative despite the 1968 Housing Act that was precipitated by the civil rights movement. However, for Gotham (2000, p. 23-24) discrimination must not be taken to mean that white neighborhoods had continued to be white neighborhoods. Segregation took new forms as several neighborhoods underwent rapid racial transition from an almost all-white to predominantly African American neighborhoods (Gotham 2000, p. 23). In other words, some neighborhoods, which were all-whites, became predominantly African Americans but segregation in housing based on race continued. Gotham (2000, p. 31) asserted that “local residents were well aware of the segregative and destabilizing effects of the Section 235 program” under the 1968 Housing Act. Like Gotham (2000), Davis (2005, p. i) also noted “housing choices for people of color were limited by discrimination from realtors, lenders, and insurance agents.” Like Gotham (2000), Davis (2005, p. i) also noted, “land use policies restricted the entry of some minorities into affluent neighborhoods and affordable housing strategies concentrated low-income residents into poor neighborhoods.” Although gains were achieved to eliminate or minimize segregation of neighborhoods, segregation of neighborhoods based on races and ethnicity “still exists in Seattle has only become more subtle and difficult to detect” (Davis 2005, p. I). Davis (2005, p. ii) found that African Americans remain highly segregated from whites. According to Davis (2005, p. ii), “while segregation decreased overall, African-Americans are much more segregated from whites than Asians or Hispanics.” Worst, according to Davis (2005, p. ii), in order to achieve integration, a large “58% of African-Americans or whites would have to move.” In contrast, Davis (2005, p. ii) pointed out that “only 45% of Asians and 35% of Hispanics would to move to achieve even integration with whites.” Davis (2005, p. ii) explained that in addition to discrimination by realtors, lenders and insurance agents, segregation of neighborhoods can also be explained by high housing prices. High prices in housing in white areas is a barrier for low income minorities to move in neighborhoods dominated by whites (Davis 2005, p. ii). In the 2006 fair housing report of the National Fair Housing Alliance based in Washington, the alliance noted three patterns that either perpetuate or exacerbate segregation of neighborhoods based on race or ethnicity (p. 5-6): 1. There is an outright denial of housing services to African-Americans and Latinos 2. Significant housing financial incentives are offered to whites but not to African Americans and Latinos; and 3. Potential purchasers are steered away based on race or national origin. The National Fair Housing Alliance (2006, p. 6) emphasized two points: 1) there were “illegal comments” made by real estate agents based on religion and race and, 2) the use of schools as proxy for racial or ethnic composition of a neighborhood or community is highly feasible. The National Housing Alliance (2006, p. 6) implied that what we see as racial or ethnic composition of schools reflect what race or ethnic group dominate a neighborhood or community. The assertions of the National Fair Housing Alliance call to mind the discussion of Gotham (2005, p 25) on the racial composition of schools in Kansas City. According to Gotham, the racial composition of elementary schools of Willard and Troost of Kansas City were only less than 10% in 1965-66 but came more than 90% in 1974-75 and many elementary schools of Kansas City had less than 50% African Americans but evolved to be composed of at least 90% African Americans in 1974-75. Gotham (2000, p. 23) pointed out however that the data indicated segregation rather than non-segregation based on race and ethnicity of neighborhoods. According to the National Fair Housing Alliance (2006, p. 6-7), the forms of discriminatory housing services provided to African Americans that has been helping to perpetuate segregation of neighborhoods based on race and ethnicity are as follows: 1. White homeseekers are shown numerous homes but African Americans or Latinos are shown nothing at all; 2. White homeseekers are shown many homes but African-Americans or Latino homeseekers are shown the home requested but are offered nothing else; 3. African-American or Latino homeseekers are required to provide confirmation from a lender before being shown many homes; and 4. African American or Latino home seekers are told to do their own additional searching for a home. The National Fair Housing Alliance (2006, p. 9) also reported that significant home financial incentives are offered to whites but not to African Americans or Latinos. The National Fair Housing Alliance (2006, p. 11) has stressed that real estate agents “knowingly” steered buyers to housing sites that implement a segregation of neighborhoods based on race and ethnicity (e.g., Latinos). Further, in the case of Marletta, Georgia, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance the use of manipulation of financial incentives and conscious steering combined to segregate housing in the United States according to a geographic pattern depicted on a distribution map on page 8 of the National Housing Fair Housing Alliance document (2006). In the National Fair Housing Alliance map (2006, p. 8), neighborhoods with a composition of between 76-100% African Americans are concentrated in the southern part of Marietta, Georgia, while neighborhoods with a composition of 76-100% white Americans are concentrated in the northern part of Marietta, Georgia. For the National Fair Housing Alliance (2006, p. 8), the concentration pattern is not coincidental and was the result of manipulation and conscious steering. Meanwhile, in a 2006 study, Sui and Wu reported that there is “conflicting evidence” on whether race or class has been segregating neighborhoods (p. 559). Sui and Wui (2006, p. 559) attributed the “conflicting evidence” or “inconclusive literature” partially to the “failure to consider scale explicitly in residential segregation measures” and partially to the “growing complexity of multiethnic melting pot in most cities in the United States.” To address the complexity, the authors developed a “multi-scale, lacunarity-based segregation measure” and used the measure to reexamine the role of race versus class in the housing pattern of Houston, Texas, in the period 1980-2000. On using the measures they have developed, Sui and Wu (2006, p. 559) found that “race is still the most important factor in explaining residential segregation despite the overall decline of segregation by both income and race.” Nevertheless, Sui and Wu (2006, p. 575) expressed the view that “there is still a long way to go to achieve residential segregation.” However, the Sui and Wu (2006, p. 559) also found that segregation patterns are also dependent on the scale as well as the specific race or income being considered. For instance, although Sui and Wu (2006, p. 559) pointed out that the low and high income groups have relatively high levels of segregation that decreased from 1980 to 2000 in Houston, Texas, “the middle income group was least segregated.” The claim or assertion of Sui and Wu is similar to the claim of Dwyer (2007, p. 23) that segregation tends to be applicable to the affluent because of the “stratifying impact of new house construction.” Meanwhile, a little earlier, Burnett claimed (2003, p. 97) that “evidence shows that African Americans lived in relatively close proximity to whites before 1900” but decades after 1900, neighborhood segregation based on race intensified. Based on this, it can be pointed out that segregation based on race need not be seen as something inherent in American society and, thus, there is a need for studies that can explain segregation based on race and ethnicity so that, hopefully, appropriate measures can be advanced. In summary, the literature has shown the segregation in housing has continued despite the civil rights movement of the 1960s. However, it may be interesting to find whether discrimination has been increasing or decreasing since the 1960s. Many of the works reviewed in this work suggest that segregation based on race or ethnicity has been decreasing but all acknowledge that it has persisted and has remained entrenched in American society. References Burnett, C., 2003. Is blade runner in our future: The persistence of racial segregation. Law and Society Review, 2, 95-111. Davis, K., 2005. Housing segregation in Seattle. A degree project for Master of Public Administration. Washington: University of Washington. Available 4 November 2010 from http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/documents/housing_seg_in_seattle-2005.pdf Dwyer, R., 2007. US Housing Development and the residential segregation of the affluent. Social Problems, 54 (1), 23-46. Gotham, K., 2000. The housing act of 1968 and the Section 235-Program. Sociological Forum, 15 (1), 13-37. Massey, D. and Denton, N., 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of an underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. National Fair Housing Alliance, 2006. 2006 Fair housing trends report. Washington: National Fair Housing Alliance. Oliver, M. & Shapiro, T., 1995. Black wealth/white wealth. New York: Routeledge. Sui, Daniel and Wu, X., 2006. Changing patterns of residential segregation in a prismatic metropolis: a lacunarity-based study in Houston, 1980-2000. Environment and Planning, 33, 559-569. Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Stainback, K. Taylor, T., Zimmer, C., Robinson, C., & McTague, T., 2006. Documentating segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity and sex. American Sociological Association, 71 (4), 465-588. Read More