Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[rjs330]

It seems odd then, that this financial institution didn’t fight the fine.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[rjs330]

You have to understand the usefulness in using hypotheticals that don't reflect reality to argue with reality.


Just saw this move from desantis
DeSantis Blocks AP African-American Studies Course for Breaking Florida’s Anti-CRT Law

Great move by Desantis!

 

[rjs330]

Incorrect.

If there is a crime perpetuated in equal measure by different groups but one group is substantially charged substantially more often, by that crime, that should be seen as a problem.

That is not evidence of systemic racism.

 

[Pommer]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

The financial institution didn’t fight the fine that was levied against it for its pattern of systematic racism, but isn’t racism, because the lenders “had other options”?

 

[rjs330]

Army officer pepper-sprayed by police gets $3,685 in $1 million lawsuit

That's great he was fired by the police. Too bad the courts don't feel that EVEN COPS WHO DONT PERFORM IN THE LINE OF DUTY WITH INTEGRITY, need not be consequenced.


I've seen teachers get worse consequences when the confiscated a kid's cell phone.

Ridiculous.

Wait whatl? I thought they had to pay awards to the victim? You realize that a JURY made this decision. They looked at all the facts and decided on the award. Are you accusing the jury of being racist?

 

[Ken-1122]

Systemic racism is to be contrasted with personal prejudice (racism).

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization.

A bank is an organization. A bank is an institution.

Did the laws and regulations of the bank require employees to discriminate against black people? Or was it just a matter of racist employees doing the discriminating. If such discrimination was the laws and regulations of the bank, then those laws taken off the books should have been a part of the lawsuit; if it was just employees discriminating, then it was never systemic racism; just individuals using their position to be racist.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did the laws and regulations of the bank require employees to discriminate against black people?

Effectively yes.

If such discrimination was the laws and regulations of the bank, then those laws taken off the books should have been a part of the lawsuit

That is also part of the consent order; certain actions the bank must take to comply.

 

[rambot]

Wait whatl? I thought they had to pay awards to the victim? You realize that a JURY made this decision. They looked at all the facts and decided on the award. Are you accusing the jury of being racist?

Yeah. Cause that's never happened before right.

 

[Ken-1122]

Effectively yes.

Effectively yes? What does that mean?

 

[RDKirk]

Effectively yes.

I don't know about that.

I don't know the specifics about those particular cases, but it's dangerous to automatically decide those cases must prove your arguments.

As well, the definition we've just been given was ",...a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization."

The laws and regulations may well be fixed and yet the conditions may be such that an entire area consists of unsalable property. It may unsalable now because of the effects of institutional racism 50 years ago, but the fix is in.

So what do we do now? Do we upgrade the properties to make them salable? That's called "gentrification."

Do we make loans to people who all rational calculations indicate will not be able to pay them back? That's what got us into the 2008 mess.

 

[rambot]

That is not evidence of systemic racism.

{Salute] Alright.

 

[Pommer]

Do we make loans to people who all rational calculations indicate will not be able to pay them back?

Yes, this is what led to the 2008 housing meltdown, as they spread out the “non-paid-back” loan failures over a wider financial area, (credit-default-swaps, slicing-and dicing mortgages) and it allowed for “more defaults than are okay” to exist in the system as-a-whole.

But this bank apparently agrees with the government enough to have paid the fine and make necessary changes to its policies regarding access of their banks to black people.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, this is what led to the 2008 housing meltdown, as they spread out the “non-paid-back” loan failures over a wider financial area, (credit-default-swaps, slicing-and dicing mortgages) and it allowed for “more defaults than are okay” to exist in the system as-a-whole.

But this bank apparently agrees with the government enough to have paid the fine and make necessary changes to its policies regarding access of their banks to black people.

Again, I don't know what was or wasn't accessible to "black people."

I put "black people" in quotes because we're not a monolith.

For instance, Wells Fargo was fined for racial discrimination in the same year I got a home loan at a great rate from them. How'd that happen? That's not how racial discrimination worked in the 50s and 60s...no black person would have gotten a loan from a discriminating bank.

Maybe it was because my credit was solid. Maybe it was because I was buying a house in a decent area. I'll be there were plenty of other black people with good credit who did get loans from those banks at favorable rates for homes in salable areas. What was common about the people who were denied loans besides the fact that they were black?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Effectively yes? What does that mean?

"The Justice Department announced a $31 million settlement on Thursday with a Los Angeles-based bank over charges that it discriminated against Black and Hispanic residents by avoiding mortgage-lending services in specific neighborhoods, the largest-ever financial award in a redlining case, officials said."

The bank, through its operating policies, avoided making loans in neighborhoods that were predominantly black and brown. Effectively discriminating against black and brown people.

 

[rjs330]

Yeah. Cause that's never happened before right.

What's your evidence of that? Cause they didn't award as much money as you thought they should have?

 

[Ken-1122]

"The Justice Department announced a $31 million settlement on Thursday with a Los Angeles-based bank over charges that it discriminated against Black and Hispanic residents by avoiding mortgage-lending services in specific neighborhoods, the largest-ever financial award in a redlining case, officials said."

The bank, through its operating policies, avoided making loans in neighborhoods that were predominantly black and brown. Effectively discriminating against black and brown people.

Was it a policy of discriminating against people just because they were black or hispanic? Was it a policy of discriminating against people who live in high crime/low income neighborhoods regardless of race; but just so happen to be mostly black or hispanic? Was it a policy of specific banks? Or all of those type of banks in the Country? Which policies did they have that caused this?

 

[rjs330]

Yes, this is what led to the 2008 housing meltdown, as they spread out the “non-paid-back” loan failures over a wider financial area, (credit-default-swaps, slicing-and dicing mortgages) and it allowed for “more defaults than are okay” to exist in the system as-a-whole.

But this bank apparently agrees with the government enough to have paid the fine and make necessary changes to its policies regarding access of their banks to black people.

You've got to be kidding. When the government decides to come after you your pretty much hosed. Their entire operation is at stake. I'd sure like to see those policies and regulations that said they couldn't loan to black people.

 

[Pommer]

You've got to be kidding. When the government decides to come after you your pretty much hosed. Their entire operation is at stake. I'd sure like to see those policies and regulations that said they couldn't loan to black people.

Ah the ol’ “whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t ‘racism’!” defense!?
Yeah.
Sure.

 

[RDKirk]

Ah the ol’ “whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t ‘racism’!” defense!?
Yeah.
Sure.

It was probably the path of least profit.

Back in the 30, General Motors refused to sell Cadillacs to well-to-do black people because they didn't want the brand associated with "Negroes." But wealthy black people were enamored of the brand to such an extent that they paid white men extra money to buy Cadillacs for them...so much so that the Cadillac brand became associated with black people anyway.

That's racism...when companies leave money on the table because it's black.

I'd like to see if that's what was happening here...were these companies eschewing profit the way General Motors did or avoiding losses?

 

[rjs330]

Ah the ol’ “whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t ‘racism’!” defense!?
Yeah.
Sure.

So you don't have any policies or procedures from the bank that says they couldn't loan to black people.