We Want Equality
Page 8
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 4.7%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 8.7%
QUICKEN LOANS
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 19.8%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 29.8%
FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 11.5%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 28.9%
PNC BANK
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 16.9%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 32.8%
THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 15.3%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 27.1%
WELLS FARGO BANK
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 15.9%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 25.2%
THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 5.9%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 17.5%
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK
Percent of applications denied in white tracts: 20.7%
Percent of applications denied in nonwhite tracts: 30.0%
Their own findings show that these percentages vary largely by institution. It also shows that as the percentage of denials go up for nonwhites, it also goes up for whites. This shows that some banks simply make it harder to get a loan. While every bank did have higher denials for non-whites, this doesn’t portend racist intent. On average, whites have higher incomes, better credit, and hold more wealth than minority groups. This could be the reason for the discrepancy in denials.120
If the assumption of the studies is right and the reason for the difference is racism, how do we combat it? For companies in industries deemed a public service, you could force them to serve the area. Taxi cabs, for instance, in most places are compelled to pick up anyone requesting a ride and take them to every neighborhood, but they are not forced to drive through every neighborhood looking for a fare. Should they be? If the population density is less and lower income people are less likely to hail a cab, should the company be forced to divert cabs to the areas anyway, at the possible loss of fares in more popular areas?
Ride-sharing came along to create new opportunities in the space. They definitely create more riding options for customer, but since they are a private company, they are not forced to drive in a particular area. If they offer rides in underserved areas it’s because they notice the taxi companies missing an opportunity. This is a free market solution.
In some situations, it’s more of a ‘chicken or the egg’ scenario. Are the costs greater because of the race or income of the residents or because of the known statistics of the area? Should an insurance company, for instance, be able to charge more for coverage in a low-income area because crime stats show there is a greater risk of burglary or theft, even if we believe the crime levels are a result of past racist practices? Further, we are no longer a free society if the government can force a company, Whole Foods for instance, to open a grocery store in a low-income neighborhood. This is where the fight for equality runs into a problem.
Often, I hear people say that in order to help those less fortunate, others are going to have to give up something. I completely agree; however, it’s the compulsory action that I am opposed to. If companies or individuals are willing to sacrifice for the greater good, I applaud them. Forcing them removes the charitable act and is not an effective means to solve any problem. Even if we could convince legislators to do this, many businesses would eventually shut their doors. Either they would lose money, or feel it’s not worth the additional risk. This scenario has repeated itself in black communities for decades.
DRUG SENTENCING
The debate, for many, as it relates to drug enforcement begins long before sentencing disparities. They wonder why, in a free society, we are trying to regulate behavior. Even those who disagree and believe drugs are bad and should be regulated or banned must admit that criminalizing it hasn’t worked. We’ve spent billions on this so-called ‘war on drugs’ and nothing has improved. But as long as these drug offenses are illegal, we have to address the way sentencing is implemented.
The issue with drug sentencing has largely been the disparity between crack and powdered cocaine. The penalties are more severe for crack possession than powder, even with lesser amounts. Those opposed to these sentencing guidelines argue that they are racist, as those found in possession of crack are far more likely to be black. While these statistics cannot be disputed, it’s is not easy to determine the reasoning behind the legislation.
In the late eighties and early nineties, the demand for crack cocaine soared. It was deemed an epidemic by many in minority communities. Due to its low price, a greater number of people were able to obtain crack. While some argue it is not, as often promulgated, more addictive than powdered cocaine, the low cost allowed people to buy greater quantities, more often. This created more addicts and introduced the drug to an alarming number of children.
These skewed sentencing guidelines were born out of a real concern for the citizens or, as is often the case with government, unintended consequences. Many of the local politicians, most of whom were black, supported, even pushed these guidelines. It’s easy to say they were wrong; most of them will admit that now. What isn’t so easy is concluding that the intent was to lock up black men.
MANDATORY MINIMUMS
Tied to the drug sentencing problem is that of mandatory minimums. Here is another area in which I agree with those arguing of its unfair nature. I will assume that the argument was to correct the problem of dangerous criminals getting sentences too light for their crimes. If this was happening, it sounds like there was a problem with the judicial appointments, not sentencing guidelines. Mandatory minimums take away discretion and context. Here is an example of what mandatory minimums can do.
In August of 2010, Marissa Alexander was attacked in her home by her estranged husband with whom she had an order of protection. She fired warning shots to get him to leave and was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Her lawyer argued she was protected by the state's "Stand Your Ground" law, but the judge denied her claim. She was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison.121 While it’s true that she turned down a plea deal of three years, any logical person can see that sentencing her to 20 years is not justice.
It also doesn’t address the biggest problem within the justice system: plea bargaining. Our constitution affords every citizen a right to a speedy trial; however, in most cases, defendants don’t get a trial at all. It starts off innocently enough. The prosecutors don’t want to spend the time and money to take every case to trial. Actually, with all of the people arrested, they simply don’t have the manpower to do so. The result of this practice is unfair to the accused and hurts society in the long run.
Here’s what often plays out in many cases across America. A person is arrested and is in possession of trace amounts of an illegal drug that would typically not lead to an arrest, but he is also in possession of an illegal weapon. When the prosecutor gets the case, he starts the plea-bargaining process. The suspect is offered reduced jail time and no felony if he pleads guilty to the drug charge. In turn, the gun charge is dropped. Now, the prosecutor has a quick win and the suspect gets less jail time; a win-win, right? Not really.
On the one hand, if there were problems with the stop or circumstances surrounding the arrest, they won’t be brought to light. Most of the offenders don’t have the best representation because of limited resources, so they are pleading to cases of which they may have been acquitted. Society is hurt because, if guilty, we have a possible violent offender officially charged with a misdemeanor drug charge. They will be let back out on the street and, due to the specifics of their conviction, not
handled in the same manner a person with a felony gun charge would have been. While people claim they want to put an end to gun crimes, this is going on unchallenged.
Here is a specific case. My wife and I were robbed at gunpoint outside our home a few years ago. The man was captured and we were given a court date. The prosecutor offered him a plea deal but he turned it down. What we found is that in many of these cases, the victims don’t show up to testify, so the suspects are advised to wait it out. If the victims don’t show, they beat the case. Once he was informed we were there, he accepted the plea. We did not have to testify but stayed in court to observe the sentencing. To our surprise, the judge rejected the plea. Apparently, he had two similar prior offenses, both plea-bargained by the prosecutor. Treating these offenders as non-violent sets a dangerous precedent.
It's important to note that all of the negative effects of the criminal justice system are placed at the feet of the Republicans. This does not mesh with reality. The narrative is that racist Republicans introduced these laws to keep blacks in line. They decry Nixon and Reagan’s war on drugs and law and order stances as code words for blacks. What they don’t realize is where these so-called racist laws came from.
Former President Clinton is often blamed for the ‘three-strikes’ rule, but the Democrats’ actions go far deeper than that. The bill was written by Joe Biden and sponsored in the house by Joe Brooks (D-TX). Of the 195 ‘no’ votes, 131 were Republicans.122 Additionally, both the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, which created mandatory minimums and criminalized crack cocaine more harshly than powder cocaine, were introduced by Democrats, James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX)123 and Thomas Foley (D-WA) respectively.124
Looking back even further, on March 25, 1971, the Congressional Black Caucus had a closed-door meeting with President Nixon. They demanded that he take more action to stop the flow of narcotics into urban neighborhoods. Nixon secretly recorded the session. Lastly in 1976, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law new mandatory minimums widely believed to be the first step to the prison overcrowding problems the state would later see prior to Brown’s resurgence as governor.125 Somehow, all of this got blamed on Nixon and Reagan.
These policies may or may not be racist in intent but blacks are disproportionately affected. The problem is that in many cases there are other plausible explanations for the action taken. 50 years ago, it didn’t matter if you were innocent or not, if you were black, you could be in danger. In today’s scenarios, more often than not, the potential victim broke a law or had some deficiency that made the actions justifiable.
The racial equality fight does not reside with blacks alone. Today, millions of illegals, many from Mexico and Latin America, argue that they are being treated unfairly. They’ve been emboldened by Barack Obama who said he wanted to secure the border but secretly passed out flyers in Mexico promising SNAP benefits for illegals.126 Later, he unilaterally created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arivals (DACA), a mechanism for some to remain in the country legally. There is a process to change immigration laws and Obama’s actions circumvented them.
Now, those here illegally march and protest, demanding citizenship. The unwavering support the Left gives illegal aliens is mind-boggling. This is not to say that I think it is right or feasible to deport millions of people. But what they’re doing is compounding the problem.
With marching orders from the radicals, leftist politicians are openly defying federal law and pushing municipal and state legislation to promote illegal immigration. They rushed to make jurisdictions they control ‘sanctuaries.’ Next was the push to give illegals driver’s licenses and now the right to vote in municipal elections.
In California, they recently named a school after Jose Antonio Vargas, a journalist who ‘bravely’ admitted being illegal.127 They also appointed the first illegal to a government post.128 In New York, Cesar Vargas was the first illegal immigrant to receive a license to practice law.129 If Democrats are actively abetting illegal actions and, in some cases, putting the needs of illegals ahead of citizens, how can anyone take a fight against illegal immigration seriously? I also wonder, with illegal immigrants getting so much coverage, what happens to those who follow the law and wait? Where is their advocacy group?
As usual, the Left is oversimplifying the problem and only focusing on emotion. Recently, there has been an emotional debate about children being taken from their parents at the border when caught crossing at an area other than an established checkpoint. This situation needs to be dealt with soon, but the Left is losing sight of the reality of the situation. We all acknowledge that coming to America, illegally, is a tough decision to make. Most of the irrational people are only looking at one end of the problem and not the other.
If you think about what a parent has to go through to make that choice, it’s heart-wrenching; worse if the child is being sent alone. This is what the Left is missing. Consider a tough decision you have to make; a new job, buying a house. You would create a list of pros and cons and weigh each one to make the best decision. These are poor people who have to pay a lot of money, risk crossing into multiple countries, avoid the Mexican cartels (if that’s not who they’re paying), assume a high probability of being raped (for young women), hope the coyote lives up to his end of the deal, pray they don’t get caught, try to prevent their kid from being trafficked, all in varying temperatures with limited food and water.
The point here is that a parent would have considered all of these dire possibilities when deciding to take the journey or send their kids to the US. Being detained at the border is simply part of the process. It’s a risk, but that risk is palatable when compared to the gamble of staying in their home country. That fact exemplifies just how bad the conditions are in many Latin American countries. Yet the Left believes ICE is the problem.
Racism will always be with us, as will every other type of human evil. We should not tolerate it, nor should we give it power. In order to make any progress towards racial equality, we have to start with what we can all agree on, then rationally go on from there. We’d lose the Left right from the start. They say they want to have an ‘honest conversation about race,’ then they proceed with dishonesty. One of their initial arguments is that blacks cannot be racist. Rationale is already gone.
Look at the way many blacks speak. They say the same things white racists say. Remember the math principle that states that if A=B then B=A? This applies to racism as well. White supremacists believe they are superior to blacks. They say things like, “The negro is inferior to the white man.” No one would attempt to say that this is not inherently racist.
On the other hand, many blacks blame all the ills of the world on the white man. They say, “Whites are evil.” In that statement they are not saying they are superior, in fact, they are normal; whites are just bad. By saying whites are evil, bad, conniving, violent, and dishonest, one can only deduce that they are inferior to the black man, who is normal. I call this the symmetric property of racism.
Many will say that blacks cannot be racist because of their lack of power. There are so many flaws to this argument. First, as is often the case with the Left, they redefined the word. There is no respected dictionary which has the caveat of power in its definition for racism. But for the sake of the argument, let’s give it to them. Are they saying no black person has power? This shows a low opinion of blacks’ success.
No one could say that Barack Obama doesn’t have power, can he be racist? Ok, he’s a unique case. How about Oprah Winfrey or LeBron James? Every celebrity, athlete or business man with a sizable fortune has power. Their words and actions influence millions. More importantly, they have a staff. They maintain several homes, have attorneys on retainer, have foundations, restaurants, clothing lines, etc., they definitely have enough power to be racists. It is not only the rich who can wield power. If a black man takes a white family hostage at gunpoint he, at least temporarily, has power. If the sole purpose of his action was his hatred fo
r whites, I think we can conclude he is a racist.
In addition to the list of celebrities, politicians, and business people with power, there are all of the black people walking around screaming Black Power. How can you say you don't have enough power to be racist when you're constantly telling people about all the power you have? The truth is that most of them don't believe they have any power at all. They believe they are powerless so they tell themselves and everyone around them they have power in hopes of changing their perception.
Lastly, the leaders of most African countries are black, do they have power? I believe if you ask white South Africans, they’d say yes. In March of this year, a proposal to amend Section 25 of the constitution allowing expropriation of land without any financial recompense passed in the South African parliament with a vote of 241 to 83.130 This comes after the new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, said during his inauguration the he would speed up the transfer of land from white to black owners.131 It seems that black Americans are the only group in world history genetically void of this human trait. Obviously, this is ridiculous.
They go on to argue that personal accountability is not a factor in how blacks are treated and anything they perceive as racist, even if race is not mentioned, is, in fact, proof of racism. They seem to be more concerned with perception than reality. Because they see racism everywhere, it’s difficult to focus on one problem. Even when they can narrow it down, their message gets lost.
Black Lives Matter was founded to address what they deemed as systematic violence against blacks. They initially focused on police brutality and murders. As they grew, they got caught up in the culture of inclusivity. On their website, BLM lists its guiding principles. These principles include: Diversity, Queer and Transgender Affirming, Globalism, Empathy and Loving Engagement. If reversing years of mass incarceration and police violence is the goal, how is affirming transgenders and focusing on diversity going to advance this cause?