College Students Seek New Roommate (And Specify Skin Color)

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

What they are meant to be is irrelevant. What they are is collective punishment based on the concept of collective guilt.

No they’re not. This is a hijack so I won’t continue in this thread, but if you’d like to contribute, I’d be happy to join you in another thread.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Tom_Tildrum

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.

I would be very surprised if the latter sentence is correct. The landlord is not part of that arrangement and may not even be aware of what the tenants’ ad said.

So the only issue is the tenant looking for a roommate. And she lives in the apartment.

[John_Mace]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I would be very surprised if the latter sentence is correct. The landlord is not part of that arrangement and may not even be aware of what the tenants’ ad said.

So the only issue is the tenant looking for a roommate. And she lives in the apartment.

Depends. If the new roommate is to be added to the lease (as per TT’s post), the landlord surely knows about it and probably (IANAL) has some responsibility to make sure the process used to get the new roommate is not illegal.

[Little_Nemo]

@puzzlegal

Also, living together is a very intimate situation. There exist racist people. Does it really benefit anyone if they are forced to live with people of a race they despise or fear? I am a Jew, and certainly wouldn’t want to live with a rabid anti-semite. Handing someone a check every month, or accepting payment from them, is much less intimate. There are certainly situations where I’d rather do business with an anti-semite than be blocked from a market.

I feel you’ve answered your own objection here. You say there are situations where you’d do business with a bigot. Let’s say, for example, that you’d be willing to buy gas from a gas station even though the person working at the station is an anti-semite.

But suppose the guy working at the gas station didn’t want to sell you gas because he was an anti-semite? Would you want him to have the power to refuse to do business with you (in support of his bigotry) even when you wanted to do business with him?

This is the same issue in the apartment situation. A lot of people would probably be uncomfortable moving into an apartment if they knew the person living is a racist who doesn’t like their race. Most people would probably choose not to move into an apartment in those circumstances.

But a few would. Should the racist tenant have the power to deny them the apartment? That’s no different that the anti-semitic employee having the power to deny you gas. My belief is that bigots should not have the power to enforce their bigotry.

@Hector_St_Clare

You can decide based on who’s going to suffer a greater burden as a result of imposition of the law, and on whose claim is more essential to a basic human good.

In this case, I think being forced to share a residence with someone is a greater imposition than not being able to rent the apartment of your choosing. I also think being able to choose the kind of domestic community you want to have (within your own residence) is a more important human good than non-discrimination.

I disagree. I think the burden on the person seeking to move in is greater. That person wants a place to live in.

The racist tenant has a place to live in. What they want is a residence free of races they don’t like.

To me, not having a place to live in is a greater burden than having to live in a place where other people are a race you don’t like. So I feel the greater burden doctrine supports my belief that the racist’s claim is outweighed by the apartment seeker’s claim.

[UltraVires]

@Little_Nemo

To me, not having a place to live in is a greater burden than having to live in a place where other people are a race you don’t like. So I feel the greater burden doctrine supports my belief that the racist’s claim is outweighed by the apartment seeker’s claim.

That’s not really the dilemma. It is whether the person may live in that particular residence instead of another equally good house versus an existing tenant’s desire (even if a terrible desire) to be comfortable in his own home.

It is not like people with money are going homeless because of racist roommates.

[DinoR]

@John_Mace

Can you link back to the part with definitions? Sorry, it wasn’t clear how to do that or I would have done so myself.

No idea. I found that link direct based on the relevant code being referenced in a page about the state laws.

[octopus]

@UltraVires

That’s not really the dilemma. It is whether the person may live in that particular residence instead of another equally good house versus an existing tenant’s desire (even if a terrible desire) to be comfortable in his own home.

It is not like people with money are going homeless because of racist roommates.

No. The person advertising is making it public and commercial. Can I sell food out of a stand and choose that someone makes me uncomfortable based upon a written advertisement disallowing a particular skin color and be acting morally or legally? Wouldn’t the public be highly irate? Nothing is stopping the seeker of food from finding another equally good provider of food.

[doreen]

@John_Mace

Depends. If the new roommate is to be added to the lease (as per TT’s post), the landlord surely knows about it and probably (IANAL) has some responsibility to make sure the process used to get the new roommate is not illegal.

I don’t think so. Suppose I decide I want to share my apartment with my boyfriend or my sister or some other friend. If I want to add that person to the lease, my landlord of course has to know about it - but that doesn’t mean he has any obligation to investigate how I picked that person.

And that’s assuming the roommate is to be added to the lease. If I am the only person on the lease for an apartment in NYC, I have a right to share the apartment with a roommate in addition to my immediate family and while I must inform the landlord of the new occupant’s name that’s all I have to do. I don’t have to explain my relationship with the person, or tell the landlord how I chose them or anything else.

There are three basic ways people end up as roommates.

1. A group of people decide they want to rent an apartment/house together and all sign the lease. In this case, the landlord doesn’t deal with anything smaller than the group- if three white men show up to rent a three bedroom apartment , the landlord either rents it to them or doesn’t. He doesn’t have any obligation to inquire about why all three of them are white men , or how they decided to rent an apartment together.

2. The landlord rents each bedroom in a multiple bedroom unit separately. That is, the landlord rents each of the three bedrooms to a person the landlord chooses , and deals with them individually. Rather than collecting a single rent of $1800 , the landlord collects from each of them individually. When person #1 moves out, the landlord chooses the replacement and the existing tenants have no say in the matter. This landlord has to follow antidiscrimination laws.

3. The landlord rents to a single individual who then seeks roommates- perhaps by advertising or perhaps by seeing if there is any interest among his friends, relatives and acquaintances.The landlord may or may not depending on local laws have any say in who the tenant brings in as a roommate. It’s hard to imagine that such a landlord will be held responsible, especially since I found a court decision that specifically found that the Fair Housing act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act does not apply to roommate situations. From FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL v. ROOMMATE.COM

“What if roommates share a bedroom? Could a ‘dwelling’ be a bottom bunk and half an armoire?” “It makes practical sense to interpret ‘dwelling’ as an independent living unit and stop the FHA at the front door.”

[Little_Nemo]

@UltraVires

That’s not really the dilemma. It is whether the person may live in that particular residence instead of another equally good house versus an existing tenant’s desire (even if a terrible desire) to be comfortable in his own home.

It is not like people with money are going homeless because of racist roommates.

Historically, there have been neighborhoods or even entire communities where people of certain races or religions were prohibited from living in. So it could have been a real world issue of somebody not having a place to live.

So how bad does it have to be before it’s a problem? Do we prohibit one person from practicing discriminatory housing? Five? Ten? Fifty?

[Melbourne]

@Melbourne

Single White Female seeking same. 1992. 14 years ago.

So that’s an anachronism now?

(Non resident for many years)

Well, nobody replied so I looed it up myself. Yes, apparently it is an anchronism. The ad’s were still like that last time I visited NYC, in the 90’s, but Craigslist now references section 3604(c) of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which apparently prohibits stating, in any notice or ad for the sale or rental of a dwelling, a discriminatory preference…

“Sale or rental” would not seem to include “room-mates”, but Craigslist also references a HUD guidance on advertising, “including for roommates.”, which explicity considers the phrase “female roommate wanted” (Short version: it may be legal to discreminate on gender, so it is legal to advertise for gender.)

From my analysis of that document, it would seem to be legal to advertise a requirement for a shomer mitzvot (Torah observant) room-mate.

[monstro]

I think barring landlords from discriminating but giving a pass to discriminatory roommate-selection is a decent compromise. The former at least allows some housing stock to be available if the latter were to get out of hand (e.g., everyone is doing it).

But more importantly, it is lot easier to enforce. I agree that the situation in the OP is clear-cut. But usually it isn’t. If I’m seeking a roommate and I get three applicants and I decide to go with the person who most resembles me in terms of class, race, and gender, who the hell is going to know? But landlords can be put to the test. Personally, I think it makes more sense to focus resources on law-breakers we can catch without treading on privacy concerns. I know I wouldn’t want to have to be put in a position to defend why I went with Potential Roommate A over Potential Roommate B when my decision would likely based on a subjective criteria like “Will this person give me a hard time about walking around in my underwear?” Landlords don’t usually care about stuff like this when they are selecting tenants.

[puzzlegal]

@Little_Nemo

I feel you’ve answered your own objection here. You say there are situations where you’d do business with a bigot. Let’s say, for example, that you’d be willing to buy gas from a gas station even though the person working at the station is an anti-semite.

But suppose the guy working at the gas station didn’t want to sell you gas because he was an anti-semite? Would you want him to have the power to refuse to do business with you (in support of his bigotry) even when you wanted to do business with him?

This is the same issue in the apartment situation. A lot of people would probably be uncomfortable moving into an apartment if they knew the person living is a racist who doesn’t like their race. Most people would probably choose not to move into an apartment in those circumstances.

But a few would. Should the racist tenant have the power to deny them the apartment? That’s no different that the anti-semitic employee having the power to deny you gas. My belief is that bigots should not have the power to enforce their bigotry.
I disagree. I think the burden on the person seeking to move in is greater. That person wants a place to live in.

The racist tenant has a place to live in. What they want is a residence free of races they don’t like.

To me, not having a place to live in is a greater burden than having to live in a place where other people are a race you don’t like. So I feel the greater burden doctrine supports my belief that the racist’s claim is outweighed by the apartment seeker’s claim.

You’ve completely misunderstood me. I was trying to compare the intimacy of living together to the lack of intimacy in a simple cash transaction. Now, it’s true that customers and salespeople can have a relationship. But it’s nothing like so close as the relationship roommates have.

I’d buy gas from someone who hated me. I wouldn’t want to live with someone who hated me.

And, critically, it will never be the case that all co-living sublets will be controlled by the dominant race/class/sex… so long as landlords are required to rent to all. Allowing individuals to discriminate along otherwise illegal lines in their personal housing situations doesn’t drive availability of apartments. So I will have an option to rent from a non-antisemite.

I think the law is right to distinguish the situations.

[bengangmo]

@Little_Nemo

Why is that? What are the normal standards of freedom you’re applying?

I understand it’s not a one-sided issue. Both sides are asserting their freedom. One person wants to be free to not rent apartments to people of a given race. The other person, who is of that given race, wants to be free to rent the apartment of their choosing.

They can’t both have their freedom. One of them will have to lose. So on what basis do you decide that the right to discriminate outweighs the right to not be discriminated against? Why do you decide the first person is free to do what he wants and the second person is not? What’s the standard you apply to decide whose claim to freedom is greater?

Yeah…
But you’re not forcing someone to rent from a particular race with anti-discrimination laws - what you’re doing is saying that the process must be fair and partial. You can still choose to rent to other races if you wish. The landlord isn’t being denied anything

For the one being discriminated against - they are the one being denied something.

[bengangmo]

@spamforbrains

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.

RivkahChaya has addressed this rather well -
If you have a specific set of likes in mind, you address behaviours, you don’t address traits.

It’s a simple enough thing to state (for example) “Female Living Environment” or “This house is Halal” (meaning no coffee, alcohol or cigarettes, amongst other things) if someone is ok with that, regardless of whether they are the right colour - what difference does it make?

It could be the same for the Iowan farm boys - they could advertise along the lines of talking about what their personalities are - they don’t have to rent to an inner city Chicago kid, but at the same time they shouldn’t be turning down an Arabic farm boy.

[bengangmo]

@RivkahChaya

I’d want to know upfront not to waste my time making an appointment to look at a room where I’m not going to be wanted.

That being said, I think the university has a right to say its bulletin boards can’t be a forum for an ad that discriminates.

I once advertised for a Jewish roommate, but I didn’t phrase it that way, because that wasn’t exactly what I wanted. I wanted someone shomer shabbes and shomer kashrut. I actually would have been happy with someone in the conversion process who wasn’t technically Jewish, but was following all Jewish observances.

When the Jewish roommate I had for three years moved out to get married, and found a sublettor, she was a gentile mostly vegetarian, who occasionally got a craving for something, and we had an agreement that she would have a dorm refrigerator and microwave in her room, and her Chinese carryout that might occasionally have meat would live in her room. I did all the cooking, and by way of compensation, she did all the laundry and dishes. I was extremely happy with that arrangement. I purchased all the food to make sure it was kosher, and she wrote me a check once a month to cover her half. It worked out better than I would have expected, and we ended up signing on for another year as roommates when her sublease expired. However, my original Jewish roommate had been extremely selective in finding her. I wouldn’t have been happy with just any gentile. She was an atheist who didn’t observe Christmas or other Christian holidays, and was perfectly happy to join in my Hanukkah or Purim festivities.

I still don’t think I was out of line in seeking a “Jewishly observant” roommate in the first place. My assumption was that it needed to be someone Jewish. Turned out it didn’t, but I think 999 times out of 1,000 it would be.

I have nothing against gentiles as friends or coworkers, but living with someone is different.

Probably this woman needs someone who “knows” Black culture. Someone who grew up with a black stepparent, or in a genuinely mixed neighborhood, or who dated a black person for a significant amount of time would fit in, but she doesn’t know that. There are probably a lot of white people who would, in fact, make her uncomfortable.

It’s hard to blame her, but that doesn’t mean the university has to give her a forum.

You’ve said what I wanted to point out with a real world environment perfectly.

the only thing to add - I do remember being interviewed to share a house with an older gay guy when I was still at uni (back in the early 90s). He explained he was gay and asked if I had a problem - and I didn’t, my reply was along the lines of “what do I care?, you’re not going to try and recruit me are you?”

My wife is Chinese - and there are definitely cultural, diet, language differences that you might be looking for in a tenant - it’s fine to advertise for these—
eg

1. the TV is permanently playing Hong Kong movies
2. Must be able to cook chinese, we eat rice every night
3. We all speak Cantonese at home
   whoever is ok with that can apply…