# Affirmitive Action... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2002, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177 "2002-12-27T16:43:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/161 "2003-01-02T19:34:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > **If you check out the statistics, these institutions can afford to descriminate, the number of White applicants compared to Black applicants is almost an order of magnitude higher.** If you’ll look at your source, you’ll note that yet again, the statistics you cite either only control for one variable (income) or fail to control for any variables at all.\*\* > [@](#): > > Whats so far fetched about organizations knowing that there is an ample market of white customers and concentrating on that market because they believe it’s the most lucrative?\*\* Are you seriously suggesting that the black market isn’t a lucrative one? Sounds to me like you’ve got some stereotypes of your own to work out…\*\* > [@](#): > > Look at the applicant numbers that I’ve cited above. An extreme level of paranoia isn’t required, you only need to look at the history of Black people in this country. Your argument assumes that none of this history took place, so I can see why you think it has to be this grand conspiracy. This country is accustomed to treating and viewing Blacks in a particular kind of way, it’s part of the psychological campaign that allowed slavery, segragation, and other outragous policies by seemingly reasonable people to occur. Whites were taught for a long time that Blacks are inferior to them, that they are less than human. Things are changing, but there’s still much work to be done. \*\* It would take a conspiracy, or at the very least a far-reaching unwillingness to pursue a market, for things to be as you describe. Banks that just want to make a buck will lend to the black market, taking potential market share away from those banks that practice racism, and ultimately will be more profitable and successful than the racist firms. Greed defeats racism. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/162 "2003-01-02T19:39:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Again: it is not 1950. Not only have we changed socially, but the nature of business has changed due to technological innovations. The scenario you suggest is implausible in today’s competitive financial services market.\*\*Methinks you need to re-read the study I posted. That study found that when critical lending factors are controlled for, there is no disparity in lending between blacks and whites except for marginal applicants (i.e., those at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder), and that no conclusive answers can be drawn as to the cause of the differential among “marginal” applicants. IOW, the study shows that the disparity does NOT exist except at the very bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, and that even in that narrow situation the disparity cannot conclusively be ascribed to racial discrimination. > > The study you cite shares the same flaws as the others posted: it only controls for one variable, income, which is only one factor in a lending decision. The study I cited controls for other factors, which makes it more credible. \*\* Really? How do you explain this phenomenon(from the report that you read): > [@](#): > > In eight of these MSAs, upper-income African-Americans were more than 1.25 times more likely to be denied than low-income whites: > > In Ft. Lauderdale, African-Americans earning more than $68,280 were 2.58 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $28,450. > > In Chicago, African-Americans earning more than $84,600 were 2.06 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $28,450. > > In Waterbury, African-Americans earning more than $72,840 were 1.79 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $30,350. > > In Bridgeport, African-Americans earning more than $86,400 were 1.62 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $36,000. > > In New Haven, African-Americans earning more than $76,200 were 1.45 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $31,750. > > In Milwaukee, African-Americans earning more than $76,200 were 1.34 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $31,750. > > In Newark, African-Americans earning more than $89,520 were 1.32 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $37,300. > > In Cleveland, African-Americans earning more than $68,400 were 1.27 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $28,500. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/163 "2003-01-02T19:42:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by you with the face \* > \*\*The theory that blacks = no good bastards has been with us since the birth of our nation. It only has been recently that that idea has been challenged on any large scale. So my assertion is not that most banks "have decided to blithely accept the notion that blacks are ‘no good bastards’ ". Rather, I’m saying that have at least to some degree _continued_ to accept that long-held idea. > > Things have changed since 1960; no one is denying that. But that’s not to say that the civil rights movement miraculously caused businesses to be color-blind and perfectly rational. It’s a nice idea, but a bit naive. \*\* Of course, I’m not saying that 100% of all businesses are color blind or perfectly rational. I’m saying that the market punishes inefficiency. I think I’m on safe ground when I say that _most_ banks are far more interested in making profits than pursuing a racist agenda. Those banks will be able to gain market share on their racist-minded competitors. Seriously, your scenario can only play out if most banks hold the view that blacks are “no good bastards.” Regardless of whether that is an old view or a new one, that is a rather sweeping charge to make at the literally tens of thousands of people who work in the financial services industry. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/164 "2003-01-02T19:48:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*The study you cite shares the same flaws as the others posted: it only controls for one variable, income, which is only one factor in a lending decision. The study I cited controls for other factors, which makes it more credible. \*\* If your study is so perfect, then why does the following disclaimer accompany it? > [@](#): > > The views presented are **soley** those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Resevere Board or its staff. This paper was completed as part of my doctoral dissertation… ---
**Author:** ![superfreakicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@superfreakicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/superfreakicus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/165 "2003-01-02T19:48:51Z")
_warning – extreme length may not be suitable for all viewers_ alright, w/o burdening anyone here w/the tedious and mundane details of my life, I will reveal that I am white, and being white, find great annoyance in my many white crybaby brothers (shout out to my homies) who feel that AA (shutup) is ‘unfair’. I think the AA issue can be safely discussed w/o even dragging in the slippery term of ‘unfair’, but before I do so, I’d like to elaborate a bit on the offensive nature of any discussion involving said term. it seems to me, from my meager life experience, w/o the aid of statistics or renowned poli-sci professors, that people tend to have fairly differing views on what is ‘fair’. in fact, if I were able to do the interviews, I might find a few billion definitions of ‘fairness’ which share a common theme — that theme being, ‘do I get my own way?’, or, ‘do I approve of this?’. it’s ‘fair’ when things go someone’s way, and ‘unfair’ when they don’t. I’m not really disparaging this attitude, it’s about as valid a definition for ‘fair’ as any other, but if everybody’s got their own definition of a term it becomes a bit pointless to try to incorporate it into a discussion. it’s like engaging in a debate where your position statement boils down to, ‘well, I like that shit’. it’s natural to want your own way — but just say so. if you can’t have your way, try holding your breath, DON’T insult me or waste my time by trying to reach a ‘noble’, ‘ethical’, or ‘fair’ conclusion. a couple generations ago, white guys constituted the great majority of employers (I’d imagine), and quite naturally, tended to hire other white guys (I’d imagine). to go a little further, they probably tended to hire guys like themselves (white), who shared similar interests and outlooks/personalities. as I can imagine, this resulted in a great majority of jobs and earning power being held by one particular group (thank christ it’s mine — yo, homies!) at some point, for whatever reason, some dude introduced AA to address this lopsided situation. if you want to say it was done in the name of ‘fairness’, that’s your business. as I’ve mentioned, I think that’s pointless. anyhow, a couple generations later, AA is still w/us, and white dudes still rule (yo!). so, why is it, that some of my white brothers find some inequity in the job market? maybe I’m mistaken about the ‘still ruling’ part, but I doubt it. if you’re a white guy, and have such great difficulty finding a job in your area, you either just suck, or live in an economically depressed area and SHOULD FRIGGIN’ MOVE! what’s all this ‘unfair’ competition, or ‘somebody stole MY job’ crap I am subjected to?? the world doesn’t OWE you a freakin’ job!! if you didn’t get the specific job you wanted, or didn’t otherwise get your way — tough shit! apparently, several minority groups enjoy most favored minority status and receive subsidies on various gov. job exams, as well as various other ‘leg ups’, and as a result, some individuals reach a position they might not otherwise attain. so friggin’ what??! — is this ‘unfair’? is some test the only ‘fair’ method to fill these positions? does it really take a rocket scientist to serve in these capacities, or could pretty much any shmoe do the job? I suggest, that ANY method of filling positions will be viewed as ‘unfair’ by those who don’t get the jobs. I mean, if it’s just about getting extra points on a test, and the ‘minority’ in question is so unfit, couldn’t the oppressed white guy just work harder and do better on the test, getting the job DESPITE a handicap? does an advantage held by your opponent have to equate to failure for yourself? although, even if we agreed that ‘unfair’ isn’t a valid criticism of AA, that still leaves the question of the benefit of it’s presence… I’m sure you understand the importance of teamwork, and the importance of contribution from every member of said team. if the team has to carry a few slackass, dead weight members, it handicaps itself, increasing the chances of failure which is suffered equally by all members, regardless of contribution. to further belabor this point, I’ll use an illustration — suppose you were a lead character on a tv show whose ratings were slipping. you got plenty of lines and camera time, stories were written to provide you w/love interests, and even in the unlikely event of your death, you’d be brought back as a twin, or maybe a pointy eared, but otherwise identical, alien. NOW, if the show gets cancelled and replaced w/America’s Least Boring pointless ATM camera footage, what have you got? fortunately for you, the producers have written in a really hot, pouty, big titted blonde, who (of course) soaks up your camera time. Maybe they even go so far as to (wisely) put you in suspended animation for a couple episodes, and give this chick the whole show. is this ‘fair’ to you? who gives a shit?! if the show now succeeds, you keep your face on tv and possibly enjoy a future spinoff or merchandising payday. uh…hmmmm…maybe this wasn’t such a great illustration… but, you get my point? how many blacks do you think are in gov. employ, or otherwise owe jobs to AA? they now contribute to our economy instead of being a drain on it. w/money now in their bank accounts, they can now withdraw from atm’s and pay white guys a transaction fee. those atm owners might be white, and they benefit. is it possible that, even WITH AA, the black community has some problems w/crime, impoverishment, and underemployment? add up all these guys who got jobs because of AA and tell me where they might be otherwise. certainly SOME would have gotten some other job or found another way to earn a living, but MOST? MOST would probably be in need of some form of gov. aid to get by, if they haven’t already decided that they were being wrongfully oppressed and looting was justified and their only alternative. I find it funny that many people who want to do away w/welfare, or make people work for it, also want to do away w/AA. but, economic contribution and the alleviation of gov. burden aren’t the most significant impacts of AA. these gainfully employed people now have a dependable source of income, encouraging independence, responsibility, and a stable homelife. maybe they can now buy instead of rent. maybe they can move to a better location, a cleaner neighborhood or safer town w/better schools. they can now actually RAISE their kids instead of just birthing them. these kids have a better chance at education, a decent domestic situation, and possibly better jobs than their parents had. as the generations go by, the effect of AA manufactured ripples will spread. maybe this is a generation where blacks get a foot in the professional door, and their kids will take higher education and white collar jobs for granted. regardless, we’re still talking about a portion of a minority. many have yet to reap these benefits. I think we’ve still got a couple generations to go. so, …what kind of country would you like to live in — one which is forced to carry a large group of disenfranchised, uneducated, and pissed off people who drain our economy and view us as hated oppressors, longing for a chance to justifiably loot us, or a strong and educated America, w/an economy powered by contributions from it’s entirety? we already kick every OTHER sorry country’s ass, imagine how far ahead we could be if we worked together as a team instead of squabbling amongst ourselves? there will come a day when AA has outlived it’s usefulness, but it’s NOT today, and it won’t be next week. _end transmission_ ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/166 "2003-01-02T19:55:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*Really? How do you explain this phenomenon(from the report that you read): \*\* I’m sorry, could you be more specific in your citation? This not a quote from the Fed paper I cited earlier, and it does not appear to be from the two you linked above. At least, that’s what my “Find” function is telling me. At any rate, I’ll just point out that the factoids you list once again only control for one relevant factor. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/167 "2003-01-02T20:00:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I’m sorry, could you be more specific in your citation? This not a quote from the Fed paper I cited earlier, and it does not appear to be from the two you linked above. At least, that’s what my “Find” function is telling me. > > At any rate, I’ll just point out that the factoids you list once again only control for one relevant factor. \*\* No it’s not from the Fed paper it’s from the report that I linked to that you said you read, which is obvious now that you didn’t. Try reading it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/168 "2003-01-02T20:01:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*If your study is so perfect, then why does the following disclaimer accompany it? \*\* Because it wasn’t prepared by the Fed itself, silly. It was presented at the Fed as part of their Finance and Economics Discussion Series. The fact that it was presented there is pretty good evidence of its credibility, though. [The Fed doesn’t just invite any schmoe to present papers. Here is a list](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/) of other papers presented in the Series in 1997, the date of the paper in question (warning: paper titles may induce sleepiness; do not operate heavy equipment while reading paper titles). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/169 "2003-01-02T20:02:57Z")
Goddammit, screwed up the URL coding… :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/170 "2003-01-02T20:18:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*No it’s not from the Fed paper it’s from the report that I linked to that you said you read, which is obvious now that you didn’t. Try reading it. \*\* I see two reports you cite to, both from ACORN: One is in [PDF Format](http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/communityreinvestment/reports/HMDA2002/tables.pdf) and consists entirely of tabular data. The other is [this summary](http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/communityreinvestment/reports/HMDA2002/findings.htm), which doesn’t contain anything like the list you posted. For convenience, here’s my cite to the [paper at the Fed](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199702/199702pap.pdf). Are you pulling data from the tables in your PDF cite? If so, which table? Or is there some other cite you’ve made that I’ve missed? Look, I read everyone’s cites but I don’t memorize them – if you’re pointing something specific out, I think you ought to make a good-faith effort to make that something relatively easy to find. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/171 "2003-01-02T20:18:21Z")
From the study that I linked to: > [@](#): > > This continued and growing disparity cannot be explained away with the assertion put forth by the lending industry that minority applicants have worse credit than white applicants. In the most detailed and comprehensive analysis of discrimination in mortgage lending, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston examined individual applications, controlling for credit, income, and other factors. They found that black and Latino applicants were significantly more likely to be denied a mortgage loan than similarly situated white applicants[ii]. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/172 "2003-01-02T20:25:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I see two reports you cite to, both from ACORN: > > One is in [PDF Format](http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/communityreinvestment/reports/HMDA2002/tables.pdf) and consists entirely of tabular data. > > The other is [this summary](http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/communityreinvestment/reports/HMDA2002/findings.htm), which doesn’t contain anything like the list you posted. > > For convenience, here’s my cite to the [paper at the Fed](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199702/199702pap.pdf). > > Are you pulling data from the tables in your PDF cite? If so, which table? Or is there some other cite you’ve made that I’ve missed? Look, I read everyone’s cites but I don’t memorize them – if you’re pointing something specific out, I think you ought to make a good-faith effort to make that something relatively easy to find. \*\* [LInk to the index of the report](http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/communityreinvestment/reports/HMDA2002/index.php) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/173 "2003-01-02T20:41:11Z")
OK, thanks. My criticism still stands: the ACORN study itself only controls for income. The paragraph you quote cites to the Bank of Boston paper, which does control for other factors. The paper to which I cited was, of course, partially written in response to the Bank of Boston paper. I refer you to pp. 4-9 of that Fed paper for a further discussion as to why the Boston paper’s analysis is incomplete. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/174 "2003-01-02T22:38:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Unless you are willing to accept a wide-ranging and near-monolithic conspiracy to shaft black people, redlining of the type described in this thread is simply not possible: banks that fail to give blacks a competitive price will find blacks taking their business elsewhere. This isn’t the 1950’s, where the local bank was a consumer’s only option; today you can get a home loan from large multinationals. Hell, today you can go to various banking internet sites and apply online. Any bank that discriminates on the basis of race does so at their peril. \*\* What, exactly, is the peril? In my area, only between 2% & 4% of the population is African American. Even assuming that that’s also the percentage of home buyers (which is a big assumption), it would seem that discriminating against such a small percentage of people is hardly going to matter one way or the other. Are banks running so that 1 out of every 50 loan applications is a make or break deal? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/175 "2003-01-02T23:10:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I think I’m on safe ground when I say that most banks are far more interested in making profits than pursuing a racist agenda. But you’re on dangerous ground when you imply that the “racist agenda” is perceived by upper-management to have nothing to do with making profits. Blacks = no good bastards translates into their minds as blacks = bad business. In other words, Mr. Money Lender would NOT say that he’s operating under a racist policy by making black customers jump through extra hoops for loans. He would not refuse qualified applications on the basis of dark skin and kinky hair being aesthetically unappealing to his eyes. No, he would probably say that he’s just looking after the best interests of his company by keeping monies out of the hands of “no good bastards”. > [@](#): > > Seriously, your scenario can only play out if most banks hold the view that blacks are “no good bastards.” Regardless of whether that is an old view or a new one, that is a rather sweeping charge to make at the literally tens of thousands of people who work in the financial services industry. I’m not saying most banks do anything. But most stats suggest that a significant number of lending institutions racially discriminate. Significant need not mean most or all, but it certainly doesn’t imply that instances of discrimination are isolated occurences. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/176 "2003-01-02T23:48:35Z")
Dewey Cheatem Undhow, I’ve tried to ask this several times, but you avoid answering it, so I’ll try it in a different manner. You keep referring to the fact that this study or that study doesn’t take into account this or that control variable. With that in mind, I have two questions. 1. Do you agree that blacks are denied loans at a greater rate than whites? 2. If you answered yes, what factor(s) are unique to blacks that make them less creditworthy as group, in order to justify the disparity? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/177 "2003-01-03T00:12:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by you with the face \* > **In other words, Mr. Money Lender would NOT say that he’s operating under a racist policy by making black customers jump through extra hoops for loans. He would not refuse qualified applications on the basis of dark skin and kinky hair being aesthetically unappealing to his eyes.** You are moving the goalposts. Prior to now, we’ve been talking about disparities (real or percieved) in actual loans made. In the situation you describe above, Mr. Money Lender is not discriminating insofar as the final lending decision is concerned; in your words, he “would not refuse qualified applications” on the basis of race. What you are now instead claiming is that banks make blacks jump through additional hoops, e.g., Mr. Money Lender is not discriminating in the final loan decision, but is instead making blacks jump through more hoops to get to that decision. None of the cites provided so far deal with this situation; none of them (outside of one link with one disputed anecdotal example) suggest that the loan _process_ is longer or more difficult for blacks than it is for whites. If you’re going to level that charge, I think it incumbent on you to provide some evidence for it.\*\* > [@](#): > > I’m not saying most banks do anything. But most stats suggest that a significant number of lending institutions racially discriminate. Significant need not mean most or all, but it certainly doesn’t imply that instances of discrimination are isolated occurences. \*\* I take it by this you are also saying that a significant number of institutions do NOT discriminate (since you deem “most” innappropriate). In which case: why don’t blacks vote with their wallets by simply patronizing those institutions which do not discriminate? Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right on the facts, why can’t the market handle this? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/178 "2003-01-03T00:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*OK, thanks. My criticism still stands: the ACORN study itself only controls for income. > > The paragraph you quote cites to the Bank of Boston paper, which does control for other factors. The paper to which I cited was, of course, partially written in response to the Bank of Boston paper. I refer you to pp. 4-9 of that Fed paper for a further discussion as to why the Boston paper’s analysis is incomplete. \*\* The newer Boston study that you’e sticking behind makes that assertion that as the income rates become higher the disparity between Blacks and Whites becomes lower. Even if we both accept that as true for that Boston study what do you make of the following statisitics? > [@](#): > > In eight of these MSAs, upper-income African-Americans were more than 1.25 times more likely to be denied than low-income whites: > > In Ft. Lauderdale, African-Americans earning more than $68,280 were 2.58 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $28,450. > > In Chicago, African-Americans earning more than $84,600 were 2.06 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $28,450. > > In Waterbury, African-Americans earning more than $72,840 were 1.79 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $30,350. > > In Bridgeport, African-Americans earning more than $86,400 were 1.62 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $36,000. > > In New Haven, African-Americans earning more than $76,200 were 1.45 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $31,750. > > In Milwaukee, African-Americans earning more than $76,200 were 1.34 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $31,750. > > In Newark, African-Americans earning more than $89,520 were 1.32 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $37,300. > > In Cleveland, African-Americans earning more than $68,400 were 1.27 times more likely to be turned down than whites earning less than $28,500. Why are Blacks, with more than twice the income of Whites being denied loans at higher rates? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/179 "2003-01-03T00:21:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DMC \* > \*\*You keep referring to the fact that this study or that study doesn’t take into account this or that control variable. \*\* Yes, facts are pesky things. A study is only as good as its inputs and methodology. GIGO, you know. \*\* > [@](#): > > With that in mind, I have two questions. > > 1. Do you agree that blacks are denied loans at a greater rate than whites? > > 2. If you answered yes, what factor(s) are unique to blacks that make them less creditworthy as group, in order to justify the disparity? \*\* 1. Yes; I’d be foolish not to. 2. What does it matter? If blacks have disproportionately poor credit histories or riskier collateral or whatever, it doesn’t matter _why_. It doesn’t matter if it’s due to the vestiges of Jim Crow or cultural factors or any other reason. It isn’t the bank’s job to remedy that disparity. The bank isn’t a charity. So long as a bank is solely looking at the numbers and making its decisions on those numbers rather than race, it isn’t discriminating – even if the results of those decisions yield and uneven distribution of loans along racial lines. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/180 "2003-01-03T00:24:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*The newer Boston study that you’e sticking behind makes that assertion that as the income rates become higher the disparity between Blacks and Whites becomes lower. Even if we both accept that as true for that Boston study what do you make of the following statisitics? > > [Stats deleted] > > Why are Blacks, with more than twice the income of Whites being denied loans at higher rates? \*\* I’ve already answered this _ad nauseum_: because income is only one factor that goes into a lending decision. Without controlling for the other variables you cannot draw a meaningful conclusion as to the existence of racial discrimination in lending. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177.md?page=10)