IS THIS DIFFERENT? CIVIL UNREST OR REVOLUTION?

If you watch much cable news, you often hear the question posed to guests appearing about

the George Floyd case and the ensuing demonstrations, “Is this different?” The question recognizes that there’ve been protests before about police misconduct and racial injustice, but many argue things didn’t significantly change. The hosts

ask if the length of time the protests have continued and the diversity of the crowds means something might happen this time that hasn’t happened in recent history.

We believe the “Is this different question?” suggests a number of answers, depending on

how the questioner defines “different.” If the question speaks to short term reform of police practices, that might warrant one answer. If the question refers to long term, systemic change regarding race relations,

income and wealth inequality, and universal medical care for all Americans a much different answer seems in order. Today, we wade into the question of policing.

A partisan divide: What did you expect?

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have

put out police reform proposals and  might vote on them soon in the houses of Congress they control. Some reports say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi already has the votes for a legislative package spearheaded by the Congressional Black Caucus. The measures would: 

Senate Republicans, led by the GOP’s only black senator, South Carolina’s Tim Scott,

and Jim Lankford of Oklahoma, put out their plan. Its highlights include: 

Republicans aren’t sure if they’d ever  accept

codification of a use-of-force standard, like a chokehold ban. Overall, the Republican plan focuses on record keeping and transparency, while Democrats prefer specific limits on police conduct. Representatives of both sides offered early conciliatory talk about the possibility of compromise and suggested patience during the legislative process. That’s admirable. The question of getting the gap bridged remains.

The absence of prohibitions against chokeholds and no-knock warrants in the Republican proposal stand out. Qualified immunity reform might become the biggest sticking point. Some Republicans called that Democratic proposal a “poison pill,” something Republicans could never accept. Scott said any “poison pill” in the legislation means getting nothing.

Waiting for the Election  

We don’t doubt members of Congress have an obligation to try getting something done now. Things keep happening. With George Floyd barely buried, another high-profile case developed in Atlanta, where a white police officer killed another black man, Rayshard Brooks, by shooting him in the

back as he fled after a scuffle with officers. The optics in the Brooks case were different than what happened to Floyd in Minneapolis, but the bottom line remained the same – a police officer used deadly force when reasonable alternatives existed. Experienced law enforcement observers said no reason existed for shooting Brooks. He wasn’t armed with a deadly weapon and wasn’t likely to get away or harm anyone else since police had his driver’s license and vehicle. 

 

The Brooks case and the continuing protests highlighted the need for action but the truth remains that with Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of the U.S. Senate, passing the kind of bill Democrats want just may not happen this year. That puts them to a choice – accept something like what the Republicans now propose or wait things out until the election in the hope of getting a senate majority and winning the presidency. Then, Democrats could pass their version of police reform legislation.

The Long Run

Whatever happens with police reform measures, the debate about race and whether this moment is “different” will continue.  Whether or not this is “different” depends on changes in the heads and hearts of Americans and in the structure of institutions. How different it becomes depends first on individual decisions

Americans of all races make about their own attitudes and behaviors concerning racial issues. Do white people finally recognize the role white supremacy has played in American society and decide they will help eradicate its effects? Will people of color embrace the idea of equality is within reach? How “different” this time becomes also depends on public policy decisions political leaders, businesses, and institutions make in the weeks, months, and years ahead in response to the protests.

The debate over police reform constitutes a significant part of our current racial angst, but it’s not all the problem. As the developing controversies over income and wealth inequality, the lack of universal health care

coverage, names of military bases and monuments in cities and on college campuses, even university alma maters, make clear, this is a multi-faceted problem and we have miles to go before we sleep.            

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION: What To Do

During the last few weeks we’ve examined in detail Richard Rothstein’s path breaking book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America.  We’ve laid out Rothstein’s support for his basic premise – that segregated housing in America resulted from sustained, deliberate governmental action, not just individual bias. After making his case, Rothstein spends much of the end of the book discussing his ideas about what America should do about the problem now.

Rothstein offers a number of suggestions for remedying the effects of housing discrimination.  To his credit, he recognizes many of them are today impractical, given the nation’s partisan, polarized political atmosphere.  But he puts the ideas out there and our purpose today is to report them, not critique them.  We’ll do that later, in one final post on this subject.

We actually start with one of Rothstein’s simplest suggestions.  Given the public’s almost total ignorance about how government, through courts, federal, state and local agencies, forced African Americans to live in segregated communities, public education about the problem becomes essential.  Teaching the history of these discriminatory practices could go a long way in dispelling the public notion that African Americans are solely responsible for their housing choices and resulting economic plight.

Economic Security

Rothstein would begin by doing something about the major problem that keeps many African-Americans stuck in substandard, segregated housing: not having enough money to buy homes anywhere else. The government, Rothstein argues, could do four things about that: 

1. Adopt a full employment policy.  This, of course, means guaranteeing jobs for everyone, using government jobs to fill in gaps the private sector leaves.  The United States has never done this except, de facto, in war time;      
2. Enact minimum wages that keep up with inflation;
3. Develop transportation infrastructure that allows low income workers to get to available jobs, particularly in suburban areas; and  
4. Provide incentives (including cash, presumably) that would spur housing integration by helping middle class blacks buy houses in suburban areas.

            

                

Zoning Reform

By banning zoning ordinances that prohibit multi-family houses or require very large lots for single family homes,

Rothstein argues black families would have a better chance at moving into integrated neighborhoods. He finds large lot requirements particularly objectionable, because they price homes many middle class black families might afford out of their reach.

Related to this idea, Rothstein advocates changing the federal tax code so as to deny the popular mortgage interest deduction to property owners in suburbs that don’t do enough to attract multi-family housing developments and moderately priced single family homes.

Another zoning reform proposal – called inclusionary zoning – would require that communities make a positive effort at integrating low and moderate income families

into more affluent neighborhoods.  This goes beyond just banning discrimination and imposes a positive obligation to promote housing integration.  Some states are doing a version of this with “fair share” requirements based, not on race, but on income.  These requirements limit development opportunities unless the area requires a “fair share” of moderate and low income housing.  Developers can build more units in places that achieve these fair share objectives, while builders in communities that don’t meet the requirements get shut out of projects.  National “fair share” requirements have been proposed as a way of ensuring moderate/low income, and perhaps racial, representation in all suburban areas and municipalities.  Tax consequences have also been suggested as a way of enforcing such requirements.

Section 8 Housing

The federal government’s Section 8 housing program

receives a great deal of consideration in Rothstein's solutions section.  As expected, he begins with a plea for more Section 8 money so more people can receive Section 8 vouchers that help economically disadvantaged individuals obtain housing.  Rothstein doesn’t stop there because it’s one thing to give more people Section 8 money, but another to give those getting Section 8 money a chance to do something different with the money.

Rothstein proposes making Section 8 grants large enough to give low income, often African-American, recipients a chance to get out of the segregated housing they often find themselves in now.  Most Section 8 recipients now just use the vouchers to subsidize rentals in segregated areas.  Rothstein wants to make the vouchers big enough that Section 8 participants could use them in escaping to more affluent areas.  This, he argues, would change the fundamental nature of housing for many low/moderate income persons and get them out of the cycle they now find themselves a part of – a cycle in which the kind of housing in which they live never really changes and the complexion of the neighborhoods in which they live never really changes.  

The solutions put forward in The Color of Law will not win popularity contests in many places.  Still, they are serious solutions for a serious problem and they deserve careful review.  We’ll get to that in a future post.