I’d go with (A) if it’s truly a private arrangement, i.e. there’s no “public accommodation” angle involving the college or the landlord. The specific races/ethnicities in play don’t matter.
I won’t have any sympathy for them, though, for the criticism they get.
My problem isn’t so much with these stupid children, but the school which has weighed in on the matter and thinks it should be discussed as if it’s about choosing their favorite sports team. It’s racism, which is a sign of ignorance, and the school should have stated so, and endeavored to educate those ungrateful brats who don’t understand why people risked and sacrificed their lives so that they could go to that school and act so horribly.
The housing situation would get even trickier if one minority didn’t want another minority. There’s historically been some tension/animosity between some Asian-Americans and some African-Americans, for instance.
in fact if any newspaper/classified ad source published that they can be cited too the pennysaver (used to be one of the biggest free mailers in so cal)had a disclaimer on every page where if ya even seen an d like that ya were supposed ot let them and the state fair housing board know (because of the huge volume of ads we get one slips through occasionaly)
I don’t even think its legal in ca so specify a sex preference for a dwelling …
This.
I’ve had shitty roommates before, I would have appreciated knowing about their repugnant opinions before moving in.
Was that something you could have determined by looking at the color of their skin?
I think he means it would be nice if people stated their racism openly like this, since you could very quickly decide not to associate with them.
I think it ought to be legal to advertise with racial preferences for a roommate. Sharing a living space is an intimate thing.
I also think it’s detestable to do so.
I think it’s clearly racism to categorically exclude an entire race as potential roommates. And racism is bad regardless of which race is the target of it.
That said, I don’t see how it’s the college’s problem if it has no connection with the apartment other than the fact the tenants are students.
Busybodies at universities frequently insert their noses in matters that aren’t their business.
I would support a university including in its student code a prohibition on this kind of (blatant!) discrimination by its students in their private housing arrangements.
“Racism” is an ambiguous term best avoided altogether. I tend to find women of some ethnicities more attractive than women of other ethnicities. Does that make me a racist?
Seeking a roommate is not subject to public accomodations laws so the exclusion is legal — I don’t think that’s in doubt. What is the issue then? Are we discussing whether it is moral?
If a person is pretty sure a certain ethnicity would make her uncomfortable, it is her right to exclude. Being up-front about it saves everyone time. Yes, one purpose of college is to broaden one’s horizons, but people adapt at different speeds: to want an anxiety-free home is not unreasonable.
Would I feel differently if black and white were reversed? Not really … but I’d have a somewhat different emotional response. People who constantly chirp: “Different answer with black/white reversed? Hypocrite! Hypocrite! Nanner nanner nanner; All Lives Matter” overlook the vast asymmetry which still exists in the U.S. between blacks and whites.
This is behavior consistently labeled racist. At the most generous it’s bigoted. Asymmetry between groups in the aggregate is completely irrelevant at a local or individual level. That sort of thinking is what allows some to engage in mental contortions and state preposterous ideas like minorities can’t be racist.
If a university can sanction people for off-campus behavior than the university can sanction her. People have lost their jobs, millions of dollars, and have suffered various other real harm for private expressions of bigotry. If that’s the standard that’s acceptable in society today the public expression of hate and bigotry should be sanctioned proportionately.
If university housing can refuse to accommodate racial preferences when assigning roommates, then it’s not too intimate an issue to bar race-based discrimination in off-campus housing notices.
Requiring color blind notices for 9-month temporary housing is nothing like requiring people to date anyone in particular.
Did you read this post?
How is that an issue in this story?
It seems to me the college had no involvement in the actual events. They were just mentioned in the story so that people would associate them with something bad. It’s the equivalent of a story saying “Three Republicans were arrested for child pornography charges.”
It’s obviously racist, and the students who wrote the ad are obviously idiots, but when deciding whom to actually share a living space with, surely personal preference based on well, any factor, should be allowed?
If some women didn’t want a male roommate, we wouldn’t call them sexist, even though they are obviously being sexist. If you are a member of a religion and don’t want someone who will cook bacon or hold satanic rituals in your home, you should have the right to exclude anyone of the wrong religion.
From DinoR’s post
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=12001-13000&file=12955-12956.2
[QUOTE=DinoR]
12955. It shall be unlawful:
bits snipped
(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.
more snipping
(i) For any person or other organization or entity whose business
involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any
person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and
conditions of a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, source of income, familial
status, disability, or genetic information.
snippity do da
(k) To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on
discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender
identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status,
source of income, disability, genetic information, or national
origin.
[/QUOTE]
bolding is mine, for my point
Doesn’t this also make make it illegal for someone to put up a tenant request stating that they are a female only looking for another female tenant? Are the 3 women in the OP also sexist because they will only accept another female applicant? Doesn’t this law open up all renters/landlords/roommates looking for another person, to a discrimination lawsuit? Because, qualified people of the opposite sex applied for that spot and got rejected?
The law seems to weigh all the above protected classes equally. So I do not see how male/female segregated dorms/colleges/fraternity housing are legal, any more than race-gated Hispanic or Asian or African American dorms/colleges/sorority housing could be… and yet they are, so I am clearly missing something.
Thus, since refusing to rent based on race or sex is equally illegal, I do not see how the OP’s case is any more heinous than any multiple roommate arrangement that “just so happen” to only be all one sex, or any other arrangement that “just so happen” to have people all of one ethnicity living together.
To clarify a point: If a landlord puts up an ad that says they’re only interested in tenants of a particular race, I’m pretty sure that’s illegal, as it should be. But here, we’re not talking about a landlord: We’re talking about one tenant seeking another tenant to share the rental unit with. That’s still repugnant, but should be legal.
We don’t know that the owner lives there. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that the woman in the article was looking for someone to be added to the lease, not that she was a landlord. And I don’t think there would be a way for the actual landlord to insulate himself by relying on the fact that it was a tenant who put up the ad.
In between? Not “nothing wrong with that,” not “terrible,” just kind of eye-rollingly racist.
And no, I don’t care what race the guy was. I don’t want to live with someone with that attitude, so I am grateful for him being honest about his hang-up.