Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[CDAK 216]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Can you copy/paste that article? From the first few paragraphs before the paywall there was no reference to different timelines to return to in-person depending on race. 

Spoiler

EVANSTON, Ill.—This summer, school superintendent Devon Horton told the residents of this city north of Chicago that for “oppressed minorities,” the coronavirus was only the latest chapter in their long history of persecution—the pandemic of “inequity and racism and classism” had been holding them down for a lot longer.

In recognition of the impact of racism, Dr. Horton said, Evanston schools would give students from marginalized groups first priority for seats for in-person learning and all other students would be taught remotely. This is “about equity for Black and brown students, for special education students, for our LGBTQ students,” he said during a public meeting, held via Zoom.

The comment generated angry letters and death threats from both residents and nonresidents of Evanston, Dr. Horton said in subsequent interviews. He said he reported the threats to police and is considering getting a security detail for members of his staff. He also said that a disproportionate number of Black and Latino students are struggling in school and it is that struggle—not their race—which will get them priority.

“There’s a big fight to be had and it’s going to be uncomfortable for a while,” he said.

Evanston is a college town, home to many professors who work at Northwestern University, which hugs the shoreline of Lake Michigan. In 2016, voters supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump here by more than 10 to 1. Last year, the city created a first-in-the-nation reparations fund for Black residents.

Even this city, which has been proactive around the issue of race relations, has been overtaken by demands for change sparked by the May killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Protests this summer called for racial equity in general and an end to police brutality against Black people. That public rage has led to a shake-up at schools, which are struggling to accommodate competing demands from teachers, parents and students. Resolutions and curriculum reviews from just a year or two ago, which were designed to recognize the harm done to Black people in America, are no longer considered enough by some. Calls for deliberation have been labeled obstructionist and racist.

Giving students preferential treatment on the basis of race has faced legal challenges elsewhere, such as in college admissions. Dr. Horton frames the issue as addressing an achievement gap that falls along racial lines in his district. In Evanston, Black and Latino students are about one-third as likely as white students to meet college readiness benchmarks, according to a 2019 Evanston schools report. White families have average household incomes three times that of Black and Latino families here, according to federal data.

Similar debates are popping up across the country. In July, in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools district in Florida, school board member Marta Perez voted against a proposal to enhance the teaching of antiracism. She said the proposal duplicated a recent effort and was a waste of resources. She called the vote “political grandstanding.” The proposal prompted hundreds of angry emails and letters to board members. It was approved 8-1. Dr. Perez was the lone vote against.

In June, the school board in Montgomery County, Va., debated a resolution condemning racism against Black people in particular, and urged the community to “stop racial injustice.” Two board members raised concerns that they didn’t have enough time to review the resolution and that it might be exclusionary because it didn’t include other minorities. The measure ultimately passed unanimously but about 200 protesters came to the next school board meeting to make their displeasure with those two members known. Neither board member returned calls seeking comment.

The difference between past and present calls for racial equity is that advocates, such as in Evanston, are demanding that Americans choose sides: Are you racist or antiracist?

This concept has roots in critical race theory, which was developed in the 1970s in law schools. Its adherents say that America is fundamentally racist and call for white people to acknowledge the advantages of being born white.

President Trump recently characterized such new school curricula on race as filled with “hateful lies about this country.” In a tweet last month and again in the recent presidential debate, he condemned critical race theory. Last month, he said he would create a national commission to promote a “pro-American curriculum that celebrates the truth about our nation’s great history.”

The national conversation in schools around race hasn’t been this pointed since the 1970s, when a series of court orders forced urban school districts around the nation to bus students to integrate schools, said Alvin Tillery Jr., a political scientist at Northwestern University and the director of the school’s center for diversity and democracy. He is also a resident of Evanston.

Dr. Horton grew up in public housing in Chicago and was helping to lead a school district in Kentucky before he came to Evanston this summer with a mandate from the school board to close the achievement gap between Black and white students. He oversees nearly 8,000 students in prekindergarten through eighth grade.

 

In July, during a public Zoom meeting, he said that all students would begin the school year online. Later this fall, should conditions permit, a fraction of students would be able to return to the classroom. The rest would continue to take class online.

After the slew of angry letters aimed at Dr. Horton, the school board responded with an open letter to the community.

“When you challenge policies and protocols established to ensure an equitable experience for Black and brown students,” the board said in its letter, “you are part of a continuum of resistance to equity and desire to maintain white supremacy.”

Corinna Raimondo, of Evanston, started a petition to bring all children back to school. It was signed by more than 700 people. Dozens of residents who objected to the petition, in a Facebook chat group for parents of Evanston children, attacked those who support it as privileged, entitled, “opportunity hoarders.”

Dr. Raimondo, who is a scientist from Italy, an adjunct professor at Northwestern, and a mother of three young children including a son in the first grade, said she didn’t fully appreciate the politics of race when she helped to organize the petition.

“I’m being told to just shut up,” she said. “I don’t think that is right. Everybody should have the right to express an opinion.”

Karla Thomas, a Ph.D. student at Northwestern studying education and the mother of two children in Evanston elementary schools, attributes the fight in Evanston to economic insecurity. The pandemic has made even those who otherwise support such measures less willing to embrace changes when so much else looks threatening and uncertain, she said. Ms. Thomas said she believes Black and Latino children need to be prioritized to unwind the impact of structural racism.

Dr. Horton said antiracism programs in Evanston include training teachers to recognize and close the gap in expectations for white and Black students and to be sensitive to the students’ cultures. As part of this work, he is considering dropping a national math test in sixth grade to determine which students are placed in advanced math classes. Currently, most of those students are wealthy and white, Dr. Horton said. He hasn’t yet determined how placements would be made.

In addition, he would like to see teachers stop using the completion of homework as a tool to assign grades, since some students have more support than others. When school districts went remote this past spring due to the pandemic, for example, many stopped grading work because they recognized that some students’ homes might not be conducive for schoolwork.

“We don’t want to penalize students for what their home life might be,” he said.

Dr. Horton has hired a dean of culture and climate and a diversity hiring specialist for the district. He wants the teaching staff to reflect the demographics of the district, which is about 23% Black and 21% Hispanic. Currently, 13% of the district’s teachers are Black and 9% are Hispanic.

Every teacher in his district will be required to take antiracist training, he said. The expectation will be that they should teach and grade equitably. Most are now, Dr. Horton said. Teachers who are not hitting the district’s goals will be “coached up,” he said.

The Evanston teachers union didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Dr. Horton said he wouldn’t hire a teacher who didn’t support the district’s antiracist agenda and said he doesn’t believe teachers should be licensed by the state if they aren’t trained in antiracism.

“If you’re not antiracist, we can’t have you in front of our students,” he said.

Sure, it's in the second paragraph.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

im just not a fan of assuming race antagonism as a primary motivator for all the bad shit in the world...

I completely agree.  I'm trying to dispel that notion.

[CDAK 216]

4 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

You've been calling them CRT professors in nearly every post on this thread, and I've been telling you "no" for pages. 

This is patently false. Quote my posts.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm saying his stats are skewed because they don't address the causal aspect of crime.  If we ascribe race to causality then we reach a flawed conclusion -- white Americans are victims of crime, whether perpetrated by white or black Americans, because they are ripe targets.  On the whole, they have more money and other assets than black Americans.  This is not hard to suss out.  The very fact that the ratios are very close to societal breakdown is telling.  Looking at large percentage differences between small numbers is risky.

Let's be honest:  JSack wants us to believe black Americans are far more racist and violent than white Americans.  Do you disagree?

I’m asking a simple question.  Do you agree or disagree that when there is an interracial violent crime involving a black person and a white person, that the white person is the victim 90 percent of the time?

And in black and white interracial murders, the white is the murder victim 69 percent of the time?

Yes or no?

Edited May 22, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Celery Man 20,874]

do these statistics include people who are murdered by the police

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

do these statistics include people who are murdered by the police

Yes.  It isn’t 10,000 a year like many on the left think, though.  

[Hank Scorpio 17,712]

WHAT ABOUT CHICAGO!?!???

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

WHAT ABOUT CHICAGO!?!???

That was the argument Jimmy was making. Same exact logic. 
 

I am heading out for dinner.  
 

Jimmy is still twisting himself into a knot.  At first he said my interracial violence numbers were wrong.  Then when I posted the proof, he shifted to a straw man about intraracial stats instead of denying the interracial stats.  Then when he looked dumb on that straw man he went to causation of the true stats I posted.  
 

Enjoy your night.  I will.  

[Mole 4,318]

So we’ve reached the interracial violence statistics portion of the program. We’re a little behind schedule.

Taken as a whole, this thread presents pretty compelling evidence that proponents of CRT have valid arguments.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

I give up.  If you don't normalize the interracial component to the overall (interracial + intraracial) crime then there is little that can be concluded.

JSack, an avowed white racist, wants us to believe his stats prove that black Americans are the real racists.  As usual, he's using flawed logic to reach that conclusion.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

4 hours ago, Macklemore said:

Gary Johnson and Joe Biden

Me too. Just checking.

[Pancho 44,358]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Johnny Sack arguing against CRT

Johnny Sack in other thread 

Same as it ever was 

His racism has been rampant on this website for years, and it’s unclear why he’s still allowed to post here.      

 

4 hours ago, Macklemore said:

. What I find objectionable is that CRT, as weaponized, is designed to put Americans into 2 warring camps of oppressor/oppressed. If you are white, to be a true anti-racist "ally" it seems that you have to atone for your heritage and through a performative self-flagellation, where you are expected to say nothing good about our country, its founding or its heritage. 

No, this is incorrect—100%

[Dahobbs 17,420]

7 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’m asking a simple question.  Do you agree or disagree that when there is an interracial violent crime involving a black person and a white person, that the white person is the victim 90 percent of the time?

And in black and white interracial murders, the white is the murder victim 69 percent of the time?

Yes or no?

Let's just assume for second that the victims of violent crime are completely random. What percentage of those victims would you expect to be white? What percentage would you expect to be black? Now, for the class, what would you guess is the reason that white people are more often the victims of violent crime regardless of the race of the perpetrator? (Hint: there are more white people). 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

On 5/19/2021 at 5:40 PM, DaysOff said:

Whites with GEDs get better mortgage rates than blacks with advanced degrees. You'll inherit wealth through property that black families have never had the ability to due to systemic racism in the property game.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 

Dude check your credit scores. Black people with a 740 get the same rate as white people with a 740. The interest rate isn’t vestiges of Property ownership (Property ownership percentage surely is) legacy of discrimination it’s a result of lack of care about credit scores in some communities and lots of talk about credit scores in other communities. 
Modern lending (near as I can tell) is completely color blind at least in regulated product types. The hard money or private money guy might be a shit bag that’s discriminating but that’s a small small part of the market. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

18 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Dude check your credit scores. Black people with a 740 get the same rate as white people with a 740. The interest rate isn’t vestiges of Property ownership (Property ownership percentage surely is) legacy of discrimination it’s a result of lack of care about credit scores in some communities and lots of talk about credit scores in other communities. 
Modern lending (near as I can tell) is completely color blind at least in regulated product types. The hard money or private money guy might be a shit bag that’s discriminating but that’s a small small part of the market. 

There have been too many settlements, incidents, and articles reported detailing discriminatory behavior for you to bluntly claim this shit doesn't happen in the face of all evidence to the contrary. So spare me your everything is fair and nobody is racist bullshit. 

 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

6 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

There have been too many settlements, incidents, and articles reported detailing discriminatory behavior for you to bluntly claim this shit doesn't happen in the face of all evidence to the contrary. So spare me your everything is fair and nobody is racist bullshit. 

 

Look it’s a machine and you input the factors and it spits out a number. I’m not saying nobody is racist but pricing isn’t something I control. It’s something my borrower controls through their credit score and the company controls through where they set the needle for all similarly situated people.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Look it’s a machine and you input the factors and it spits out a number. I’m not saying nobody is racist but pricing isn’t something I control. It’s something my borrower controls through their credit score and the company controls through where they set the needle for all similarly situated people.

Those sorts of pricing controls only began in what, the last decade or so? We're talking 80+ years worth of damage here. That being said, even with algorithms they're still finding issues. 

Minority homebuyers face widespread statistical lending discrimination, study finds

Quote

Face-to-face meetings between mortgage officers and homebuyers have been rapidly replaced by online applications and algorithms, but lending discrimination hasn’t gone away.

A new University of California, Berkeley study has found that both online and face-to-face lenders charge higher interest rates to African American and Latino borrowers, earning 11 to 17 percent higher profits on such loans. All told, those homebuyers pay up to half a billion dollars more in interest every year than white borrowers with comparable credit scores do, researchers found.

The findings raise legal questions about the rise of statistical discrimination in the fintech era, and point to potentially widespread violations of U.S. fair lending laws, the researchers say. While lending discrimination has historically been caused by human prejudice, pricing disparities are increasingly the result of algorithms that use machine learning to target applicants who might shop around less with higher-priced loans.

“The mode of lending discrimination has shifted from human bias to algorithmic bias,” said study co-author Adair Morse, a finance professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. “Even if the people writing the algorithms intend to create a fair system, their programming is having a disparate impact on minority borrowers—in other words, discriminating under the law.”

First-ever dataset 

A key challenge in studying lending discrimination has been that the only large data source that includes race and ethnicity is the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA), which covers 90 percent of residential mortgages but lacks information on loan structure and property type. Using machine learning techniques, researchers merged HDMA data with three other large datasets—ATTOM, McDash, and Equifax—connecting, for the first time ever, details on interest rates, loan terms and performance, property location, and borrower’s credit with race and ethnicity.

The researchers—including professors Nancy Wallace and Richard Stanton of the Haas School of Business and Prof. Robert Bartlett of Berkeley Law—focused on 30-year, fixed-rate, single-family residential loans issued from 2008 to 2015 and guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This ensured that all the loans in the pool were backed by the U.S. government and followed the same rigorous pricing process—based only on a grid of loan-to-value and credit scores—put in place after the financial crisis. Because the private lenders are protected from default by the government guarantee, any additional variations in loan pricing would be due to the lenders’ competitive decisions. The researchers could thus isolate pricing differences that correlate with race and ethnicity apart from credit risk.

The analysis found significant discrimination by both face-to-face and algorithmic lenders:

Black and Latino borrowers pay 5.6 to 8.6 basis points higher interest on purchase loans than White and Asian ethnicity borrowers do, and 3 basis points more on refinance loans.

For borrowers, these disparities cost them $250M to $500M annually.

For lenders, this amounts to 11 percent to 17 percent higher profits on purchase loans to minorities, based on the industry average 50-basis-point profit on loan issuance.

“Algorithmic strategic pricing”

Morse said the results are consistent with lenders using big data variables and machine learning to infer the extent of competition for customers and price loans accordingly. This pricing might be based on geography—such as targeting areas with fewer financial services—or on characteristics of applicants. If an AI can figure out which applicants might do less comparison shopping and accept higher-priced offerings, the lender has created what Morse calls “algorithmic strategic pricing.”

“There are a number of reasons that ethnic minority groups may shop around less—it could be because they live in financial deserts with less access to a range of products and more monopoly pricing, or it could be that the financial system creates an unfriendly atmosphere for some borrowers,” Morse said. “The lenders may not be specifically targeting minorities in their pricing schemes, but by profiling non-shopping applicants they end up targeting them.”

This is the type of price discrimination that U.S. fair lending laws are designed to prohibit, Bartlett notes. Several U.S. courts have held that loan pricing differences that vary by race or ethnicity can only be legally justified if they are based on borrowers’ creditworthiness. “The novelty of our empirical design is that we can rule out the possibility that these pricing differences are due to differences in credit risk among borrowers,” he said.

https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/minority-homebuyers-face-widespread-statistical-lending-discrimination-study-finds/

When people talk about systemic racism this is what they mean. Turns out that 100+ years of discriminatory policies and practices by legal fiat has long term consequences which don't resolve themselves simply by people no longer being mean to each other. 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

1 hour ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Those sorts of pricing controls only began in what, the last decade or so? We're talking 80+ years worth of damage here. That being said, even with algorithms they're still finding issues. 

Minority homebuyers face widespread statistical lending discrimination, study finds

https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/minority-homebuyers-face-widespread-statistical-lending-discrimination-study-finds/

When people talk about systemic racism this is what they mean. Turns out that 100+ years of discriminatory policies and practices by legal fiat has long term consequences which don't resolve themselves simply by people no longer being mean to each other. 

Yep.  Your "work" on these issues over the years has certainly opened my eyes quite a bit.

I suppose one could say, well it's just housing, and home ownership is overrated, and you'd be technically correct.

But, home ownership offers an enforced savings and wealth accumulation device that has been a key factor over the years for white folks to accumulate wealth (and the side benefit of stability).  And that accumulation occurs over the course of generations, so 20-40 years for just a single generation. And it really only works for those who are able to buy in long-term desirable areas.  If you have to buy in a shitty or deteriorating area, it probably doesn't work at all.

So, go back a generation or two and you're back in the really bad old days of deed restrictions and flat-out discrimination, so it's no answer to say "well, we fixed all that 10 years ago."

I have an anecdotal personal experience to back this up.

My parents, on the advice of my Dad's sister and the fact that Dad went to SMU on the GI Bill (whoops, not available to blacks), bought a duplex near SMU with a VA loan (oops, not available to blacks, also in a deed restricted area one year before judicial enforcement was banned).  

They lived there for 15 years, kept it, and moved into a single-family home in the same area and school district and rented the dupiex (smart moves both, but also not practically or even probably legally available to black folks).

Desegregation meant that the value of all property in that city and school district skyrocketed in value through the 70s and 80s into the present.  

Now, they were smart, and lucky, and they saved and sacrificed to do those things.  And it contributed six figures of value to their estate at their passing.  And those things were almost categorically unavailable to black people in the same time frame.  And, mind you, this was 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

The really cynical would say something to the effect that it doesn't matter, there were no blacks at that time that had the economic wherewithal to do what your parents did.  That might maybe actually be true (and also prompts a lot of questions about exactly why that was).  But at the outset, as a WWII vet, my Dad didn't have a pot to piss in.  He had a college degree (two actually) and that's about it.  And he was white. 

My parents weren't overtly racist and they taught me not to be.  They didn't stomp on any black people to get ahead.  But they benefited in ways that were simply not possible for black Americans at that time.  And they passed on their advantages so accumulated to me.

Edited May 22, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Neonmoon 38,127]

Imagine you weren’t allowed to buy a house in Westlake, NW Hills, Davenport, Barton Hills, Allandale, Tarrytown. You were only allowed to buy a house in Rosewood or Montopolis. When houses appreciated over 30 years, how much money did you lose because of that restriction? How much wasn’t passed down to your children because of that restriction? 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

21 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Those sorts of pricing controls only began in what, the last decade or so? We're talking 80+ years worth of damage here. That being said, even with algorithms they're still finding issues. 

Minority homebuyers face widespread statistical lending discrimination, study finds

https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/minority-homebuyers-face-widespread-statistical-lending-discrimination-study-finds/

When people talk about systemic racism this is what they mean. Turns out that 100+ years of discriminatory policies and practices by legal fiat has long term consequences which don't resolve themselves simply by people no longer being mean to each other. 

So maybe this is where we are talking past each other. I’m not saying the system wasn’t set up to be racist. I’m quite frankly shocked that there was ever a point in time where people would knowingly turn down making money in order to perpetuate racism, but I recognize that it did happen back in the day. I’m also not saying that there isn’t a legacy from that time period that still affects people today. 
what I am saying is that there isn’t systematic racism in the system right now. Everyone with a mortgage now (and by everyone I mean the vast vast vast majority) got their mortgage and their interest rate in a time in which this system was in place. 
What I mean by similarly situated for pricing is we punch in like 4 factors in our pricing matrix and none of it involves race. It’s debt to income, loan to value, credit score, and absolute loans amount (bonuses are paid for higher value loans- and the once you get above conforming limits pricing gets worse). Those bonuses are very slight and should be less than 1/8 of a point. 
Also, it should be noted that people tend to do business within their affinity group, depending upon how they self identify. So maybe it’s where you went to school, or your church, or your color or sexual preference or the like, so the people setting the pricing for people of color are often times people of the same color- that means not racism but opportunism. 
There exists an entire market of people who get a loan with almost no contact with their LO. It’s a 90% commodity business and race isn’t considered part of that commodity. If you do run into the occasional person who values being racist more than making money all Incan say is one phone call should put you within the 99% of the people who are operating in accordance to the law which isn’t systematically racist. 
Again, I’m not arguing against the idea of down stream effects from past bad or racist policies, I’m saying that it doesn’t exist systematically now- and you’d only see someone operating outside of the system, and that can (and should) be easily rectified with 1 phone call to another lender and 1 phone call or audit by a state agency. 
I’ve got a handful of AA and plenty of Hispanics who I’ve helped buy houses or refinanced.

I’ve got the black professional degree holder I put in a mortgage at 9% a couple years ago. That was because he had a 512 credit score and was in the process of being foreclosed on, and that was the only game in town for a home equity in foreclosure proceedings with a 512 credit score. But they don’t ask about color and I don’t even know it typically when I’m putting together my loan (until I talk to the person and then it’s just a guess based upon how the voice sounds on the phone- but not something that matters one way or another). I see less than 5% of my clients in person and my suspicion is most are the same. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, home ownership offers an enforced savings and wealth accumulation device that has been a key factor over the years for white folks to accumulate wealth (and the side benefit of stability). 

It goes even farther than that.  Rent is the baseline, not zero, so the excess costs (if any) associated with owning a home can do a lot of work in terms of building wealth.  Furthermore, a homeowner can deduct their property taxes (up to $10K) and mortgage interest, resulting in a lower annual tax bill.

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Imagine you weren’t allowed to buy a house in Westlake, NW Hills, Davenport, Barton Hills, Allandale, Tarrytown. You were only allowed to buy a house in Rosewood or Montopolis. When houses appreciated over 30 years, how much money did you lose because of that restriction? How much wasn’t passed down to your children because of that restriction? 

Again- I get that. That wasn’t the thing I was responding to- i even said that when I said my parenthetical that I get that past ownership affects present ownership. I was taking about the idea of current disparate interest rates being racially motivated and that being. Systematic in nature. That’s it. Limited point and I conceded exactly what you are talking about. 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Again- I get that. That wasn’t the thing I was responding to- i even said that when I said my parenthetical that I get that past ownership affects present ownership. I was taking about the idea of current disparate interest rates being racially motivated and that being. Systematic in nature. That’s it. Limited point and I conceded exactly what you are talking about. 

You don't understand the concept of systemic racism. It doesn't necessarily involve intentionality. No one in the current process needs to be racist. But, due to historical processes and reinforcing feedback loops, racial disparity is promoted in the current system. That is exactly what is happening in the examples you've been provided. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It goes even farther than that.  Rent is the baseline, not zero, so the excess costs (if any) associated with owning a home can do a lot of work in terms of building wealth.  Furthermore, a homeowner can deduct their property taxes (up to $10K) and mortgage interest, resulting in a lower annual tax bill.

Yep. 
For the average American building wealth is done almost entirely through housing. I chose and like doing what I’m doing because I believe so strongly in homeownership and helping people own homes is helping them better their lives. When someone cries at the closing table because they never thought it would happen for them it makes my choice to do what I do seem awesome. 
I’m currently helping someone try to buy a 100k house. It’s a slog. My LP asked me why and my response was- BC this will help their entire family change their entire life. 
 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

You don't understand the concept of systemic racism. It doesn't necessarily involve intentionality. No one in the current process needs to be racist. But, due to historical processes and reinforcing feedback loops, racial disparity is promoted in the current system. That is exactly what is happening in the examples you've been provided. 

Again- I’m taking strictly about current interest rates. Race and neighborhood isn’t even looked at when determining the price. It’s all credit score driven. 
I’d love for everyone to be able to buy a house. I’d make more money and more people would have access to the American Dream. It’d be awesome for me professionally and it would be a tide that would lift a ton of votes. 
 

[HornOnTheBayou 8,877]

25 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’ve got the black professional degree holder I put in a mortgage at 9% a couple years ago. That was because he had a 512 credit score and was in the process of being foreclosed on, and that was the only game in town for a home equity in foreclosure proceedings with a 512 credit score. But they don’t ask about color and I don’t even know it typically when I’m putting together my loan (until I talk to the person and then it’s just a guess based upon how the voice sounds on the phone- but not something that matters one way or another). I see less than 5% of my clients in person and my suspicion is most are the same. 

What point were you trying to make with this example? Because it doesn't really seem to back up the argument you've been making.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

36 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Again- I get that. That wasn’t the thing I was responding to- i even said that when I said my parenthetical that I get that past ownership affects present ownership. I was taking about the idea of current disparate interest rates being racially motivated and that being. Systematic in nature. That’s it. Limited point and I conceded exactly what you are talking about. 

Why would I give a fuck about the motivation when the resulting effect puts me in the exact same place? People need get out of this mentality where they think the worst thing about racism is individuals hating each other. Fuck feelings!!!

 The worst thing about racism is the power imbalance. The issue with redlining wasn't the inability of black people to move next to someone who hates them. It was the resulting affect meant the grandchildren of steeleworkers in Pittsburgh eventually attained the ability to raise capital, build communities, businesses, and most importantly self esteem while the grandchildren of teachers in Atlanta had no ability to do the same. And in this systematic pedagogy of oppression those children now attach value and human self-worth to that power disparity. You're now less than human when you're poor. Then laws are created punishing that lack of humanity. Before you know it you have an entire hierarchal society based on this discrepancy in power and voila people like @Johnny Sack get to justify the treatment of these lower level human beings because the closed loop system keeps sustaining itself. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

16 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

What point were you trying to make with this example? Because it doesn't really seem to back up the argument you've been making.

The point is that pricing is credit score related. Someone said on average black processional degree holders have higher interest rates than white GED holders. I said it’s bc of credit score. And then gave a credit score example. 
I’ve put 3 people (out of like 390 total loans In 3.5 years) into a loan like that. It’s an effort to avoid foreclosure and supposed to (in theory) be a band aid and a bridge to allow someone to reorder their life. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[Dahobbs 17,420]

20 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Again- I’m taking strictly about current interest rates. Race and neighborhood isn’t even looked at when determining the price. It’s all credit score driven. 
I’d love for everyone to be able to buy a house. I’d make more money and more people would have access to the American Dream. It’d be awesome for me professionally and it would be a tide that would lift a ton of votes. 
 

Good God man. Yes, the system doesn't directly rely on race. But it does rely on other factors that, due to historical circumstances, do implicate race. The resulting feedback loop perpuates unfair outcomes for blacks.

[synoptic 138]

16 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Would teaching about the declaration of independence and all men being created equal count? It seems pretty explicit, complex, and ethical to me. This is a serious question, I want to understand the boundaries you'd impose. 

I think it would be a good thing to teach in history class.  That was an important ideal for the founders of the country and relevant to the subject.       

 

 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

9 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Why would I give a fuck about the motivation when the resulting effect puts me in the exact same place? People need get out of this mentality where they think the worst thing about racism is individuals hating each other. Fuck feelings. The worst thing about racism is the power imbalance. The issue with redlining wasn't the inability of black people to move next to someone who hates them. It was the resulting affect meant the grandchildren of steeleworkers in Pittsburgh eventually attained the ability to raise capital, build communities, businesses, and most importantly self esteem that the grandchildren of teachers in Atlanta had no ability to build. And in this systematic pedagogy of the oppression those children now attach value and human self-worth to that power disparity. You're now less than human when you're poor. Then laws are created punishing that lack of humanity. Before you know it you have an entire hierarchal society based on this discrepancy in power and voila people like @Johnny Sack get to justify the treatment of these lower level human beings because the closed loop system keeps sustaining itself. 

So let’s fix it. I’m down. How do we do that?  Again- I think we are taking past each other. I’m trying to explain how interest rate decisions are made and that race isn’t a component it’s credit score/dti/ltv and a little bit loan size in giving out an interest rate. 
I’d love to see the access to the market expanded to let everyone in. What’s that look like to you? 

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

So let’s fix it. I’m down. How do we do that?  Again- I think we are taking past each other. I’m trying to explain how interest rate decisions are made and that race isn’t a component it’s credit score/dti/ltv and a little bit loan size in giving out an interest rate. 
I’d love to see the access to the market expanded to let everyone in. What’s that look like to you? 

In my initial response to you the link of the study I posted explained how the legacy of our racism is already a built-in component of the machine learning you're referencing.

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Good God man. Yes, the system doesn't directly rely on race. But it does rely on other factors that, due to historical circumstances, do implicate race. The resulting feedback loop perpuates unfair outcomes for blacks.

I was taking about interest rates not “the system” bc I was responding to a post about interest rates. The part that takes about inheriting wealth I said- yes- that’s true and conceded the point.  Are we no longer allowed to talk about and explain a macro point with industry specific knowledge in the context of a discussion about the macro situation?  That’s al I was trying to do. And again- I conceded the larger point about the legacy that redlining and the like has made. 
I want to be on the side of fixing whatever we can fix for people to have a better life. Tell me how. Be honest about it. Make it as fair as possible. Understand what’s driving current policy. 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

13 minutes ago, synoptic said:

I think it would be a good thing to teach in history class.  That was an important ideal for the founders of the country and relevant to the subject.       

 

 

So you agree some complex, ethical topics need to be taught in school, right? Where is that line? For instance, when does a book become too much about morality or ethics to be taught? What particular moral or ethical lessons are allowed? Historical significance doesn't seem like much of a limitation. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17,420]

10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I was taking about interest rates not “the system” bc I was responding to a post about interest rates. The part that takes about inheriting wealth I said- yes- that’s true and conceded the point.  Are we no longer allowed to talk about and explain a macro point with industry specific knowledge in the context of a discussion about the macro situation?  That’s al I was trying to do. And again- I conceded the larger point about the legacy that redlining and the like has made. 
I want to be on the side of fixing whatever we can fix for people to have a better life. Tell me how. Be honest about it. Make it as fair as possible. Understand what’s driving current policy. 

I'm not talking about a system in the abstract, but rather the overall set of processes that determine interest rates. Interest rates are determined by a system. Interest rates are part of a system. And interest rates are affected by the same processes. I don't understand what point you are making. I agree that interest rates aren't directly determined by race. But they are subject to the same indirect forces and the same feedback loop. That is systemic racism. We combat it by (1) being aware of it, and (2) providing positive assistance to negate the long term effects of prior racists policies. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I was taking about interest rates not “the system” bc I was responding to a post about interest rates. The part that takes about inheriting wealth I said- yes- that’s true and conceded the point.  Are we no longer allowed to talk about and explain a macro point with industry specific knowledge in the context of a discussion about the macro situation?  That’s al I was trying to do. And again- I conceded the larger point about the legacy that redlining and the like has made. 
I want to be on the side of fixing whatever we can fix for people to have a better life. Tell me how. Be honest about it. Make it as fair as possible. Understand what’s driving current policy. 

"I'm sorry I cut off your legs, but from here on out we're gonna make this race as fair as possible." 

In a situation like this the fix isn't going to be viewed as fair by society at large and that's the crux of the problem. Additionally, something as simple as the change from an industrial economy to an information based economy creates large hurdles in accomplishing this task.  

Edited May 22, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[Js1 85,056]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So you agree some complex, ethical topics need to be taught in school, right? Where is that line? For instance, when does a book become too much about morality or ethics to be taught? What particular moral or ethical lessons are allowed? Historical significance doesn't seem like much of a limitation. 

Sounds like wanting to cancel things that are complex and thought provoking 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

4 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

"I know I cut off your legs, but from here on out we're gonna make this race as fair as possible." 

In a situation like this the fix isn't going to be viewed as fair by society at large and that's the crux of the problem

Exactly. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

So the pricing disparity is because of likelihood to shop a mortgage? That was my first point when I said the market is insanely competitive and anyone that wants to be is one call away from a better deal. 
The good news- as with most things- is buried at the bottom and says that essentially there isn’t any racial discrimination in the algos on qualifications, and that in person is 5% and declining. Which supports my proposition that the market is now essentially fair and anyone acting in a racist manner is exceeding rare. Which is great news. 
It looks like we are splitting fine hairs. It looks like we are doing it right now and maybe we could do it even better with a few incredibly minor tweaks. 
So, let’s fix the legacy as best as we can. 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So the pricing disparity is because of likelihood to shop a mortgage? That was my first point when I said the market is insanely competitive and anyone that wants to be is one call away from a better deal. 
The good news- as with most things- is buried at the bottom and says that essentially there isn’t any racial discrimination in the algos on qualifications, and that in person is 5% and declining. Which supports my proposition that the market is now essentially fair and anyone acting in a racist manner is exceeding rare. Which is great news. 
It looks like we are splitting fine hairs. It looks like we are doing it right now and maybe we could do it even better with a few incredibly minor tweaks. 
So, let’s fix the legacy as best as we can. 

Dear god, I swear you can't be reading the same words that myself and others are writing. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

My point is this- when you are dealing with an injury the first thing to do is stabilize the injury so that there’s no more damage done going forward. This has been done and we should celebrate that. 8 basis points (and its 3 on a refinance) is in effect almost nothing. It’s a $500 million dollar problem (much less on refinances in an industry that did 4 trillion dollars last year. I’m arguing that the injury has been stabilized and fixed going forward so it’s doing no more present harm. That’s it. That’s the sole point I was making. If there is an incredibly minor, non intentional and non racist side effect from doing a deal with someone unlikely to shop then send a $13.00 check to everyone situated in that group in the same way we deal with people who suffer incredibly minor individual harm in a class action lawsuit. 

the second part of treating the injury goes to fixing underlying issues. That’s a different conversation that I’ve conceded needs to be looked at now that we’ve got the thing stabilized. I’m open to any idea on what that looks like and would be pretty willing to deal with even some pretty radical solutions. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Dear god, I swear you can't be reading the same words that myself and others are writing. 

And I feel the exact same way as you. Which is why I said we are clearly talking past each other. 

[David Dennison 18,603]

I'd like to hear Johnny Sack's thoughts on why white people are usually victims and why black people are usually perps when it comes to violent crime.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

9 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

And I feel the exact same way as you. Which is why I said we are clearly talking past each other. 

It sounds like to me you are wanting to say problem solved, no more systemic racism. That is the exact opposite of what we've been telling you. Yes, the front end of the interest rate process doesn't rely on explicitly racist factors, and that is good. The real work is fixing the back end where the effects of prior racist policies bubble up and affect everything else. This isn't mission accomplished. What you're talking about is the easy bit. Going to @Catdaddyhorn's analogy, the rules of the race have been made fair. But now we gotta sew this guy's legs back on. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

The effect of the unplanned racial discrimination in interest rates, in the market place is .00000012% when talking about a $500 million dollar problem against a 4 trillion dollar industry. This seems like incredibly good news to me, when considering we’ve gone from what was a horse fucking against minority borrowers 50 years ago to something that’s essentially unseeable in anyone’s day to day life. I’m ready to fly a mission accomplished banner on how we are currently lending and proud of the industry I joined that this is what’s happening now. 
It is, on average a $2.03 per month affect. So cool- let’s by all means fix that unintended consequence. But the good news is that works what we are doing going forward. 
now, let’s figure out what we can do about past bad behavior. 
And, if we want to do it in a way that gets necessary buy in to make a big change let’s do it in a way that acknowledges the vast majority of us currently working in this system, or any system, weren’t responsible for setting it up, are doing our best to act with justice in our lives, and see what we can collectively do to make up for past reprehensible behavior that we have never engaged in. 

[52-80 19,066]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Imagine you weren’t allowed to buy a house in Westlake, NW Hills, Davenport, Barton Hills, Allandale, Tarrytown. You were only allowed to buy a house in Rosewood or Montopolis. When houses appreciated over 30 years, how much money did you lose because of that restriction? How much wasn’t passed down to your children because of that restriction? 

Every non-WASP family has been disadvantaged one way or another since the founding of the country. What should Wulaw Horn do for me to equalize the fact that I didnt inherit a Tarrytown house either? How much is looking long and deep in the past going to help ensure equality of opportunity today abd going forward?

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It sounds like to me you are wanting to same problem solved, no more systemic racism. That is the exact opposite of what we've been telling you. Yes, the front end of the interest rate process doesn't rely on explicitly racist factors, and that is good. The real work is fixing the back end where the effects of prior racist policies bubble up and affect everything else. This isn't mission accomplished. What you're talking about is the easy bit. Going to @Catdaddyhorn's analogy, the rules of the race have been made fair. But now we gotta sew this guy's legs back on. 

That’s why I said we are talking past each other. I’m saying that we have fixed the current problem (I put numbers to it and it’s just a micro micro issue- less than a Starbucks a month with a super easy fix going forward- but that report should be viewed as awesome news as it pertains to the current system). And I acknowledge the legacy affect and acknowledge that’s the harder part. We aren’t on opposing sides on this (at least I don’t think we are) and I’d love to see us attack the legacy of racism that our ancestors gifted to us. Because I think the country is onboard with that. And I think it’s possible for people to be reasonable if the thing is dealt with in the right way and it’s dealt with logically as opposed to emotionally. 
And that logic, to my way of thinking goes something like this- there’s been harm in the pay because of racism that was inherent in the system. We realize very few people now act with any explicit racism, but let’s all try to figure out how to settle up for this legacy we were left in a way that doesn’t blame people who weren’t part of cresting that legacy but benefited from it. 
Maybe that looks like every black person that can trace their lineage in this country to a certain point in time automatically qualifies for a house. Hell, maybe even at 0 interest rate. And it’s government guaranteed. I don’t know- I’m just throwing out one simple idea. 
my own families story is that both my grandparents were both dirt poor. One bought a house and left their kids $500k (split 4 ways) in inheritance because they died with 0 money in the bank but a paid for house. The other grandparents never bought and they will leave nothing to their kids. So I get what a big boost homeownership is. It’s why I believe it’s why makes the American dream happen. So, let’s fix that. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,963]

By the way- my parents went bankrupt, got foreclosed on and won’t be sending any of that money my way, compounded and in a legacy. 
My suspicion is my story in this way is more typical for most white people than is the story of the family who did it generationally right and passed on a legacy to their progeny. 
but, I also recognize that way more white people did get a financial lifeline from their parents than did black people, and that’s directly related to housing policies in the past 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

Sounds like we are making progress. However, I have to address the below:

24 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

And, if we want to do it in a way that gets necessary buy in to make a big change let’s do it in a way that acknowledges the vast majority of us currently working in this system, or any system, weren’t responsible for setting it up, are doing our best to act with justice in our lives, and see what we can collectively do to make up for past reprehensible behavior that we have never engaged in. 

As I and others have said many many many times, the concept of systemic racism isn't about labeling individuals as "racist" or casting aspersions or blame onto others. It is about understanding and describing the problem of unintentional racism. You aren't being called racist. Stop thinking like that. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

21 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Every non-WASP family has been disadvantaged one way or another since the founding of the country. What should Wulaw Horn do for me to equalize the fact that I didnt inherit a Tarrytown house either? How much is looking long and deep in the past going to help ensure equality of opportunity today abd going forward?

That's simply not true. At least not to the same degree. The GI Bill and post WWII housing policies did a good job of rectifying things to a large degree for ethnic whites. And white looking hispanics have been able to blend in as well over the generations. There's a reason this problem is much more entrenched in some communities than others. Because they were much more exhaustive, punitive,  and all consuming for some groups than others.