The Library Annex

Today’s residential segregation in the North, South, Midwest, and West is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States.

de facto segregation or de jure? “Personal Responsibility” or systemic oppression? American Dream or Myth?

I do not intend to rehash the data presented by Rothstein as anyone showing the vulnerability and fortitude to confront this data will not likely find a better source. Rothstein excels in articulating his thesis and presenting his argument clearly and without deviation.

While reading Color of Law, I noticed a few themes upon which I’d like to expound here.

The first is reconciling the effects of early 20th century government-funded – if not outright perpetrated – residential segregation and African American oppression with their causes. One can read this information and perhaps maintain the illusion of progress; of separation from history. Those of privilege too easily digest ideas which justify or debunk injustices enacted by the powerful. I cherish books which highlight the rope tying our present-day to our history; the parentage which raised our current environment. Factors outlined in the de facto myth of housing segregation result directly from government mandates, illegal oppression and inequality.

Secondly, I appreciated Rothstein’s focus on the constitution and the role of the Supreme Court throughout this history. With the Civil Rights Acts of the 19th and 20th centuries and the constitutional amendments, we can see how interpretations of these reforms and forgiving loopholes can still allow for oppressive practices today. Rulings maintain a clear focus on constitutionally-directed government responsibility and where that must end; particularly regarding the private housing industry – this idea that the government cannot override the preferences of private business or neighborhood residents. But does this interpretation end too prematurely? I am reminded of the recent ruling around a business owner’s freedom to deny service to homosexual couples based on religious freedom. The government can intervene and force that service or allow the market to resolve itself; ie, that business owner risks his business as many customers may patron other establishments. But if the government racially discriminates in its regulations not allowing for those to choose another business (or home), then how does this pass as constitutional or add credibility to the idea of laissez-faire government? The book outlines how the efficacy of constitutional imperatives can hinge on interpretation of government responsibility. I must conclude that these amendments were adopted to protect American citizens when private practices or state policies infringe on the freedoms of those citizens which compels government to act. And if that is so, then denying African Americans the purchasing power and choice of home, which they handed out to others, inherently bars their freedom and mars their equality.

Lastly, I noticed how employment discrimination during World War II anecdotally illustrates how systemic inequality also serves to harm the welfare and economic progress of everyone – not only black or brown people; though they bare the massive weight of it. Within racism lies a bedrock of hierarchy. In order to enjoy the luxuries at the top, someone needs to wallow at the bottom. Within this idea of hierarchy seethes a fume of insecurity. In order to enjoy the luxuries at the top, I need to stay at the top. However, when subsidized businesses allow for over 100,000 heads to perform jobs for the success of that enterprise and war effort but bar able-bodied men of a brown skin color from them – leaving thousands of those jobs unfilled – the national community suffers and the war effort prolongs. Perhaps the head of that enterprise can pocket those unpaid wages to secure his place at the top, or the government can keep that money, but the overall populace suffers. Our own self-interest ought to teach us that our well-being depends on others’ well-being; that we will not rise unless others around us rise. But too many would rather imbibe propaganda protecting those at the top.

I respect Rothstein’s clear presentation and his ardent adherence to facts which dictate his thesis. He finishes the book timidly presenting ideas to repair the national damage of 20th century de jure housing segregation and in his epilogue concisely lists all previously presented points throughout the book. His case is compelling. Now what propaganda can those in power design to keep us from acting?