"Ending the Cycle of Racial Isolation"

The latest in the New York Times's continuing assault on traditional
American Civilization.  As always, the Times is bothered by any neighborhood where white people are permitted to live among one another, unless of course it's a super-rich hebraic neighborhood such as the ones Times editors live in.  Meanwhile...

The Editorial Board found (or more likely, helped fabricate) a single 'success story' among the thousands of attempts to transform the lives of the leisure-underclass by moving them into middle-class neighborhoods.  The typical Times racial agitprop hardly needs elaborating (opponents want to "turn back the clock"), but their readership--as measured by the "Readers' Picks" (hard to believe they still allow that) as opposed to "NYT Picks" (which generally take the form of "How Great Thou Art, NYT!") is still--at this very late date--singularly illuminating.  The top 50 are posted below.

This author (MC) is fortunate enough to live in a comfortable, upscale suburban neighborhood.  (Actually, it wasn't good fortune which placed me here, it was tens of thousands of hours of hard work, but never mind that.)  However, the housing debacle of the last decade made it possible for people of a slightly lower class to move into some of the cheaper homes.  All of these people (like this author) are white.  But what a transformation they have wrought, in just a few years.

Some examples: multiple vehicles left out in front of the homes, and even on the public roadways (all houses have rear-entry garages and generous drive courts on acre-plus properties).  Some even park vehicles on their lawns.  All of the new residents back their vehicles all the way out to the street, despite turnaround facilities behind the houses--and some of the driveways are 1000 feet long! There is an increasing number of loud, untrained, neglected dogs.  Super-bright "Security" floodlighting aimed at the street has supplanted discreet accent lighting aimed at the houses.  Natural, traditional materials on the houses (wood, stucco, slate) are being replaced by plastic and aluminum.  Cheap vinyl 'replacement' windows desecrate once-handome façades.  HOA requirements that refuse cans not be left out by the streets are uniformly ignored by the newcomers. Landcaping has begun to deteriorate.  Parents and their children--sad to say--tend to be rude, uncouth, uncultured.  The civilised, genteel social fabric which made this an outstanding place to live is fraying.

This rant could go on, but that would obscure the point: these people are white.  By and large, they are of the same or similar European extraction as the existing residents.  So the culture clash--and it is real--cannot be about skin color.

Given their characteristic, psychotic jewish obsession with race, nothing like this will ever become clear to the likes of the NYT Editorial Board.  Oh well.

Here are the NYT reader comments:

SundayReview | Ending the Cycle of Racial Isolation

    See All Comments 

Bill is a trusted commenter Des Moines 15 hours ago

Sounds great. Lets identify where all the NYT Editorial board members live and start a program where poor people can live next door. I await the excuses.

    146  Recommended

DrPaul Los Angeles 7 hours ago

Inferentially, the Times is calling for massive low income housing projects to
be built throughout the Hamptons, where too few people occupy too much property. I agree wholeheartedly. It would be wonderful for the Hamptons' progressive millionaires and billionaires to embrace the same diversity they impose on everybody else.

    107  Recommended

Eva Boston 7 hours ago

The notion that people should live in racially mixed environments, or to attempt to mandate it, is unrealistic. Humans are tribal beings. Our ancestral and cultural roots, family history, and resulting ways of thinking (conscious or subconscious) make us favor, expect, and long for behaviors and traditions that people of different races do not share.

When we're young and adventurous, we are usually excited by the prospect of mingling with people of other races and cultures - but when it comes to settling down, choosing a neighborhood, starting families, sending kids to school, sustaining long adult friendships, or preparing for the final exit, we tend to gravitate toward people who are like us.

We want to live in places that reflect our cultural and religious beliefs, and therefore make us feel comfortable, and allow us to pass our culture to our children (you can't do it just at your family's kitchen table - it takes a village!)

All of this does not mean that we are intolerant or racist, or that we don't want contacts with people who are not like us, or that we don't wish them well. It only means that each of us has only one life, and in our private sphere we have a right to choose how, where, and with what kind of neighbors we want to spend our lives -- the NYT's tiresome moralizing notwithstanding.

    84  Recommended

Bruce Higgins San Diego 7 hours ago

No one should be excluded from living in any community they choose by law or regulation. What is an 'inconvenient truth' and not talked about, is that many segregated communities are that way because people choose to live there. Many people are more comfortable living near others with similar backgrounds and cultural history. I live in such a community, there is nothing preventing my neighbors from moving 5 or 10 blocks away. The housing costs and living are about the same in this entire area, yet about 10 blocks square has become known as 'Little Saigon' because many people like to have neighbors with whom they share a similar culture.

The same thing happens with all ethnic groups. The problem is when regulators get involved. I note that segregated communities among minority groups is called 'ethnic diversity' and in white communities its called racism.

    77  Recommended

ZAW Houston, TX 7 hours ago

This article was clearly written by people who have no experience in poorer neighborhoods. Whenever I hear housing advocates and others lament the construction of low income housing in "ghettos" (as the New York Times calls them) I feel compelled to ask a few questions.
First, one of the biggest problems facing poor minority neighborhoods is a lack of investment. They have to beg decent businesses to move in. Landlords have to be forced just to bring their buildings up to code. Tax credited, low income housing is often the only real investment these neighborhoods can get. What happens if that investment goes away?
Second, many suburbs will fight affordable housing, and it's not always just because of racism. It doesn't matter that low income housing today is light years beyond the failed public housing projects of the 1950s. The reputation persists. Is it really fair to keep spending money and time on court battles, instead of using those resources to help improve poorer neighborhoods?
Finally, suburbs are becoming poorer while cities become wealthier. Gentrification is happening at a startling pace in many cities. The neighborhood around New York's High Line are a good example. But there is no program to help poor minorities stay in neighborhoods as they gentrify. Why not? How can you talk about fair housing, while forcing poor minorities out of cities?
If you can answer these questions, you'll be the first. Housing advocates seem to shy away from them.

    71  Recommended

Jonathan is a trusted commenter NYC 5 hours ago

"Its management has rigorously screened applicants and has tried to ensure an income mix by setting broader income guidelines."

So, they discriminate, eh? They don't just let in anyone, lest all kinds of riffraff come in and wreck the place. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits by 'activists' demanding that worthless criminals be given housing.

    58  Recommended

NYT Pick
Rachel NJ/NY 7 hours ago

The problem is that a lot of "affordable housing" doesn't end up in communities that are wealthy enough to absorb the social costs. It ends up in communities that are borderline middle class, and can serve to drag them downward by elevating crime rates and decreasing school test scores (both of which have a real impact on home values, and thus on family wealth.) The best place for low income housing is the kind of place that can afford to buy off politicians to send it elsewhere.

There are a number of tricky issues about enacting these kind of policies. While outright racial bias in housing is illegal, you're not going to get people who have the means to stop seeking out better school districts if their local schools go downhill. You're also going to find it hard to get real estate agents to bring white clients to mostly black neighborhoods when the real estate agents know, from experience, that a white client is 90% not going to want to buy there. So they tend to steer black clients toward buying in black neighborhoods because that's the easiest way to unload the home. And then of course, the neighborhood that was 60% black becomes 90% black.

My point is that this solution of integration involves going against a lot of human tendencies that are remarkably slippery. It's not impossible to do, but simply banning overt racism isn't going to do it. It's probably more effective to push to raise people's wages in poor neighborhoods and let them go where they will.

    51  Recommended

John S. Portland, OR 7 hours ago

Many years ago, I remember a college professor engaging the class with a simple question: "Is it the ghetto that makes the people who live there, or is it the people who make the ghetto"? The question is as relevant today as it was then. Those who are driven to educate and improve themselves, more often than not, eventually do make it out of the ghetto on their own anyway. If the aim is to export the rest to the neighborhoods where those same people who successfully pulled themselves up and out of the ghetto now reside, I suspect there is either going to be pushback or flight.

    45  Recommended

Martelly Brooklyn 7 hours ago

I must live on one of the most integrated blocks in America. The plurality now seems to be orthodox Jewish due to a recent influx but there are a still a couple of old guard reform Jewish families, a Puerto Rican family, a Colombian family, a family from Guyana, a Haitian family, a retired Irish cop, etc. It's a nice block, everyone gets along.

There were no special programs or any other govt meddling that forced everyone together. One thing I did notice about my neighbors is that a great majority of them are/were small business owners or worked for themselves in some capacity. Real NYC strivers. I say all this to point out that neighborhood make up is mostly driven by some strain of commonality in its residents. Many times it is racial or ethnic but sometimes it's not. The idea that a roomful of govt bureaucrats armed with "demographic" data having the power to dictate who lives where and why should frighten us all and will lead to worse outcomes than the status quo.

Resources would be better spent going after individual discrimination, e.g., the black professionals who can't get into the snooty UWS coop for unknown reasons.

    41  Recommended

Mario Brooklyn 7 hours ago

Mt Laurel seems to owe much of its success to adequate funding for timely maintenance and good management. But when it comes to government funding that's never a guarantee. Quality public housing anywhere is one budget crisis away from turning into a ghetto.

    39  Recommended

John Q. Citizen New York 2 hours ago

I have lived all over the United States, but no place as white as where I presently live: the uber-liberal, Democratic, Times-reading, and diversity-extolling Upper West Side. And the good white liberal Times readers who live here would not have it any other way, especially as regards the public schools to which they send their children. Before wagging its finger at this or that community in Maryland or elsewhere, perhaps the Times should devote its energies to imposing its vision of diversity on its own people on its own front stoop.

    30  Recommended

Mp London 7 hours ago

Mixed income housing is common in the UK. In London public housing caked council flats fit next to luxury homes and apartments - the result is greater social cohesion and better education for all kids - the USA is still a place of too much segregation at all levels - the results are clear for all these see

    In Reply to Bill 28 Recommend

N. Smith New York City 7 hours ago

While the Editorial Board makes a valiant case for the lack of government intervention in bringing about fairer housing practices, the problem of racial discrimination also lies in landlords who overwhelmingly prefer white tenants over non-white tenants. A fact that has been proven more than once by agents pretending to be perspective renters/buyers, and getting no further than the preliminary application process.
It is perhaps fair to assume that there is not one member of the New York Times Editorial Board who has ever encountered this problem. For if there were, it would be very evident that an end to the cycle of racial isolation is nowhere in sight.

    27 Recommend

Michael H. Alameda, California 2 hours ago

Somehow, I doubt that anyone on the Editorial Board has any Section 8 housing within hearing distance.

When you live anywhere near Section 8 housing, you get to overhear 'conversations' like this: "F*** You, Mother F*****!!!! How many b****** you f***?" For some reason, whether on cell phone or face to face, these 'conversations' occur at high volume. That is an actual screaming match I got to overhear, with small children nearby. With little variation, the same thoughts were loudly expressed, over and over. With Section 8, you also get lots of visits from the police and emergency vehicles.

The Black middle class, the Hispanic middle class, the Asia middle class, the white middle class, none of us want to live around that kind of behavior and loudness and disruption.

Reading about one little community, with no supporting links, where everything has been swell for 15 entire years isn't convincing. If the Editorial Board wants to go live in the ghetto, great, go for it. But don't pretend that folks don't have good reason for not wanting the government forcing disruptive and dangerous neighbors on middle class people, of all races.

    27  Recommended

Jim Phoenix 2 hours ago

Perhaps The New York Times should establish an employment policy that requires its staff to live only in economically and racially diverse neighborhoods. Nick Kristof, for example, lives in affluent Scarsdale, NY, where there are virtually no African-Amerians. The Times can't ask the rest of America to do what its own people won't do.

    26  Recommended

Ted Pikul Interzone 2 hours ago

Unless members of the Editorial Board are proactively working to get subsidized housing built in their own neighborhoods, this is just the usual cost-free finger-wagging.

    25  Recommended

TDurk Rochester NY 2 hours ago

Actually, the editors are right, racial isolation should be stamped out beginning with the editorial and management ranks of the NYT. Along with other groups that experience discrimination.

The NYT should post an analysis of their employee population by job type of the racial and ethnic diversity of their organization. That means starting with their ownership structure, their Board of Directors, their editors, journalists, management and so on, all the way through their ranks. No co-mingling of jobs, let's see how fare.

At the same time, they should post an analysis of the racial diversity of their neighborhoods and their condos and the schools they send their kids to attend. No fair resorting broad groupings; eg, "Manhattan." They need to post the data for where they call home.

At the same time, it would be useful for the NYT to do an analysis of their organization to determine how many individuals have prison backgrounds. This is an ox the editors love to pontificate about, so let's hear how they manage their own effort to reach out to ex-cons.

Finally, the NYT never seems to publish any articles about the need to find well paying jobs for veterans, especially those who are young and perhaps with limited civilian job skills, say infantry or armor. How many veterans does the NYT employ?

Don't hold your breath readers. It ain't gonna happen.

    23  Recommended

Matt NJ 1 hour ago

The Times Editorial Board, most of whom don't live anywhere near subsidized housing, preaching again. Chances are most live in Co-ops that routinely exclude prospective buyers, with no reason required.

How diverse is their apartment buildings? Not at all in most cases. But that's OK because the law permits their boards to discriminate any way they want to. Just don't put it in writing, say the lawyers.

    21  Recommended

Sam Bronx, NY 2 hours ago

The Times' use of the term "ghetto" as it applies here is patently offensive. Jews suffering under the rule of Nazi Germany didn't have the option to move to an area of their choosing. This piece also seems to indicate subtly, that minorities are somehow unable to control their own destiny, and that the solution to their problems can only be fixed by "progressives" like those well-heeled, ultra-educated navel-gazers who write holier-than-thou, finger-wagging pieces like this. The illegal-immigration piece yesterday followed a similar pattern.

Note to the editorial staff: your readership is annoyed. They are more intelligent than you are giving them credit for.

    21 Recommend

QED NYC 2 hours ago

I wouldn't want any subsidized housing near me. I don't care what color the people there are; I care about increased crime. It's bad enough my tax dollars are paying someone else's way. Don't come destroy my neighborhood too.

    22  Recommended

zhen NJ 2 hours ago

Yet another puff of smoke from the Ivory Tower. But let's take this a face value: if Grey Lady's Editorial Board really believes in mandating behavior to citizens, start with itself. Until NYT mandates that its senior staff lives in "ghettos" (their term) as continued condition of employment, no more pompous, preachy editorials to the great unwashed (us).

    21  Recommended

La Verdad There 2 hours ago

On Saturday, the Edit Board lavishly praised " sanctuary cities" that receive Fed. law enforcement money, but refuse to comply with Fed immigration law.

Today, the Board. sternly berates cities that receive Fed. housing money, but refuse to comply with Fed. fair housling laws.

Nothing like a little hypocrisy.

    20 Recommend

Kathleen880 ohio 1 hour ago

So yesterday you want us to ignore laws if we don't like them - the Sanctuary Cities editorial.
Today you want us to obey the laws about forcing low-income housing into middle-class neighborhoods.
So which is it? Does the editorial board think we should obey laws or not?

    19  Recommended

Princeton 2015 Princeton, NJ 8 hours ago

As Dr. Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation stated, "Secondly, the research in academic achievement never suggested there was something about the whiteness of the skin that benefited African-American students. It was always that low-income students of all races do better in an economically mixed environment. … Their classmates had parents with higher education levels, which was related to higher aspirations."

In other words, the children did better academically because they were placed in better schools not because of the racial makeup of the schools. Some charter schools like Success and KIPP likewise provide better educational opportunities for poor children stuck in failing schools.

Where I take issue, however, is in the hypocrisy of the teachers unions. One of the criticisms of charter schools is that they leave those who remain in failing schools with fewer resources and less opportunity. But this same charge can be leveled against voluntary racial integration such as Ethel Lawrence. But somehow this bothers the teachers unions less. Maybe this is because charters provide a non-union choice whereas the Mt Laurel traditional schools remain unionized. Such self-interest by teachers unions in preserving union dues detracts from any noble purpose that such racial integration may have achieved.

    19 Recommend

michjas Phoenix 2 hours ago

According to a professor involved in the study of Mt. Lauel's success, “Most of the [original Mt. Lauel] res­i­dents had no clue that there was even low-​​income housing in their town.” Furthermore, according to the study, putting low-income black people into white suburbs (where, apparently, most residents didn't know they existed) magically improved their lives.

What is omitted from the academic review is that, in connection with the plaintiffs' lawsuit, a corporation was retained to conduct a strict selection process in order to select applicants for Mt. Laurel that would be the best fit for the community. (The application process was a multi-step procedure involving an initial screening, followed by in-person and in-home visits before a candidate could be selected.) Also, the professors and "friends" looked far and wide for applicants who fit into a precise range of incomes deemed ideal. Finally, they arranged for financing including outright "grants, developer contributions, reduced township fees, and loans”

Ethel Lawrence is a model project carefully shaped and specially financed. If you can engineer utopias for tens of millions of minorities, Ethel Lawrence is a great guide. But, if you have typical resources available, Ethel Lawrence is pie in the sky.

    20  Recommended

James Lee Arlington, Texas 8 hours ago

The elimination of discrimination protected by law is critical in a democratic society. But it is only honest to admit that government programs, such as the one in Mount Laurel, create a clash between the equality favored by legislators and the individual freedom that forms a core element of America's public philosophy.

It is one thing to ban laws that exclude groups from housing areas. It is quite another to require that low-income housing be located in an existing neighborhood. Concerns about crime rates and falling property values do not make homeowners racists, just prudent investors. In the Mount Laurel case, rigorous vetting of new residents quieted anxieties. Crime rates did not rise and property values did not fall.

It seems unlikely, however, that this formula could work nationwide, if only because too many applicants would face exclusion for purely economic reasons. While helpful, the Mount Laurel approach, by itself, cannot end segregation. Attempts to force communities nationwide to incorporate housing for low-income families would arouse hostility as an attack on individual freedom and a threat to property values. Middle-class flight (of all ethnic groups) would ensue, as it has so many times before.

Effective bans on legal discrimination; experiments with approaches similar to the Mount Laurel project; and a national commitment to reduce poverty, can all help increase residential integration. But there are no panaceas.

    19  Recommended

Amanda New York 2 hours ago

This is easy for the Times opinion editor and publisher to say. They will inherit nice apartments along with their jobs, from their fathers. Those apartments are in places where subsidized housing will be very difficult and expensive to build. So they do not have to worry about the increase in turbulent behavior that comes from living next door to troubled unmarried women and their numerous out-of-wedlock children, sometimes by several different fathers who may or may not be present.

    18  Recommended

a new york ,ny 3 hours ago

Good! maybe the anonymous "Editorial Board" can volunteer to take them as neighbors next? It would only be fair since they support the measure. But we know that will never happen. This article epitomizes modern progressivism: diversity for thee but not for me. As so it goes...

    18  Recommended

Jack California 2 hours ago

The richest White communities in America usually vote Democrat. (Eight of the ten wealthiest counties voted for Obama in the last election). And it's the Democrats who favor imposing government-subsidized "minority" housing in White neighborhoods.

So why are these housing projects always built in low and middle income (usually Republican) White neighborhoods? Why aren't these projects instead built in the rich White communities that vote for the political party that supports subsidized-housing?

How about the ultra-liberal Hamptons? Or Nassau County in NY? Or Somerset and Morris counties in NJ? Or anywhere in the rich, milky-white state of Vermont? (Rich Whites in Vermont up there just love socialist Bernie Sanders).

And I'm sure minorities from the inner-cities would be perfectly happy to attend school with those breast-fed White kids in those very exclusive liberal schools in NYC.

    15 Recommend

Siobhan is a trusted commenter New York 8 hours ago

This sounds like a wonderful program. It would be great if it could be emulated throughout the US.

But I have concerns on implementation. Programs like this, with carefully screened applicants and broader income guidelines, at some point seem to get sued, because they exclude "those most requiring help."

    16 Recommend

NYT Pick
Ray NYC 3 hours ago

As a refugee from communism I find forced (and, fortunately, discredited) school busing and government tyrannical forcing communities to build housing for "diverse" (and Orwellian and PC double speak for statistically more crime and a whole array of destructive behavioral problems bearing) population an abuse of state power rather similar to that we fled from.

Using legislation, powers of state, media, school curriculum to instil in majority population sense of guilt for all kinds of "past injustices", even if almost none of us got rich on or exploited others will always work to only a limited degree, again similarly to communist dogma a totalitarian enforcement of the same, crushing people down to achive "equality" of results while actual abilities among individuals and even group vary widely, especially when considering generation-to-generation cumulative effects.

Our New England town's zoning doesn't allow for building municipal sewage and water system in order to prevent any apartment building in the community and we support that.

    16 Recommend

carol ohio 2 hours ago

"Ending Racial Isolation" means destroying communities. Would the writer break up the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church for the good of the churchgoers? Scatter Chinatown to end its dreaded racial isolation? Probably, in pursuit of some never-ending perfect society.

    15 Recommend

TDurk Rochester NY 2 hours ago

So at what point does "rigorous vetting" become racial discrimination?

As usual, the editors are very long on sermons and very short on pragmatic solutions. Not to mention their indifference to the people who have invested most of their life savings to own a home in a middle class suburban neighborhood.

    16  Recommended

Reader In Wash, DC Washington, DC 2 hours ago

Come on bleeding heart liberal NYT Editorial board. DEMAND federals laws to integrate the UES (and Georgetown too.)

Upper East side demographics from US Census Bureau
89.25% White
6.14% Asian
0.04% Pacific Islander
1.34% African American
0.09% Native American
1.39% from other races
1.74% from two or more races.

    16  Recommended

Good John Fagin Chicago Suburbs 2 hours ago

Please note, " Its management has rigorously screened applicants...."
Who could have imagined.
Try to understand, the prejudice lamented so often on these pages is not defined by a light meter reading on an individual's dermis, but by the activities in which they are engaged.
My people (Czech) did not sell their west side of Chicago domiciles at a crushing loss because they were worried about the complexion of their neighbors, they left because the majority of their neighbors were becoming difunctional: noisy, messy, sloppy, criminal, indigent, irresponsible and, finally, dangerous.
My cousins, not bleeding, but gushing-heart liberals (I am not allowed to use "the N word" in their presence, even referring to Bill Crosby) left their lovely, well maintained, meticulously restored, nineteenth century mansion in a lovely middle class neighborhood of a large, downstate city and fled to an upper class area away from the "diverse" neighborhood closing in on them.
And it wasn't the Gangsta Rap that sent them packing, it was crime.
We don't mind the Huxtables, its their trashy relatives we want elsewhere.

    15  Recommended

ClearedtoLand WDC 2 hours ago

It won't be long before the "screenings" are deemed prejudicial against serial felons and the neighborhood becomes exactly like the neighborhood these people broke their backs to escape.

    15  Recommended

Tom Charleston SC 2 hours ago

I would like to suggest that the authorities in New York ask the elite to set an example and start by building in a nice neighborhood, one which would enable residents to "climb New York." Lets have a special tax on the East Side and then build a building suitable for families in a super nice area, something like 79th and Park. Can't do it? Won't do it? Then don't ask people in Queens or Nassau County to do it either.

Let's face it. I rent and won't rent in a complex that accepts section 8. There are too many problems. Don't believe me? Read our local newspaper.

    15  Recommended

Victor Wong Los Angeles, CA 3 hours ago

Diversity should be voluntary - not mandatory.

    15  Recommended

Bill NYC 2 hours ago

I still do not get why liberal moan when wealthy people move into poor neighborhoods and then wine when the poor can not move into wealthy neighborhoods...
Pick one, please

    13 Recommend

Carlos R. Rivera Coronado CA 2 hours ago

I will believe the NYTimes, Liberals, Progressives, etc., etc., really mean this when they require Malibu Beach, CA, to build low income housing for the poor and persons of color.

    14  Recommended

James B. Huntington Eldred, New York 2 hours ago

Most people CHOOSE to live with those of their own race!

    12  Recommended

walter Bally vermont 2 hours ago

So applicants are "rigorously screened". Exactly what does that mean? Because that too reeks of discrimination. Worse, it's not the government or the buildings that make a ghetto, it's the people within.

To the Times editorial board who will never have to live in a ghetto: You can't have it both ways.

    12  Recommended

D. H. Philadelpihia, PA 2 hours ago

The township where I've lived for many years has changed radically in its ethnic composition. The impact on the high school is that the proportion of AP classes has switched with the proportion of special education classes. There are physical fights in the hallways. The SAT scores have dropped significantly. The civil rights of children who attend school to learn in peace and quiet, in a physically safe environment, have been affected. These are published facts. When we sell our house it will be worth less than similar homes in other suburbs where the educational standards have been maintained. To be clear, I do NOT generalize the facts of the changes in this township to social change elsewhere. I'm very much in favor of a just society with good housing for all. But forcing young parents to go to other townships where academic standards have been maintained is a hard problem to address. Especially without being accused of ethnic and/or racial bias. Are other readers aware of townships where schools have taken successful measures to maintain high academic standards successfully?

    11 Recommend

blackmamba IL 8 hours ago

In the beginning Lyndon B. Johnson proposed fair housing legislation in January, 1966 and ran into bipartisan political and binational geographic opposition. The bill quickly went into committee and died. A weary nation had gone through enacting the 1964 and 1965 civil rights legislation dealing with employment, education, public accommodations and voting all preceded by active resistance and violence in the South.

On April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered and within a week fair housing legislation was voted out of committee, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by LBJ. But the Poor People's Campaign that Dr. King was planning for Washington D.C. in the spring that was to emphasize socioeconomics over being colored floundered and failed miserably. A year to the day before his murder Dr. King spoke at the Riverside Church in NYC warning about the negative confluence of poverty, war and racism.

The fair housing law as enacted along with being underfunded lacks effective investigation, enforcement and penalty mechanisms. Detecting discrimination among all the parties to a real estate housing transaction is difficult without testing. Racial housing discrimination was endemic and enduring in the North before and after the fair housing era. I was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago in the oldest largest contiguous black community in America. Housing determines socioeconomic, educational and political opportunity.

    11 Recommend

NYT Pick
David L, Jr. Jackson, MS 3 hours ago

In "The Open Society and its Enemies," Karl Popper distinguishes between two kinds of social engineering: piecemeal social engineering and utopian social engineering. The former is often conflated with the latter and hence with the Soviet Union; and once this is done, the argument is effectively over, at least in the minds of the people who have conflated the two. Any proposal to rectify past injustice or even to simply set about enforcing existing law, flouted by racists for decades, is shouted down and the proposers condemned as Bolshevik types.

No serious person thinks ending racial segregation and injustice can be done ham-handedly; everyone is aware that it must be done with proper sensitivity. And this editorial clearly demonstrates what everyone knows: It can be done, and as far as I'm concerned, must be done. It is just wrong to continue cramming subsidized housing into miserable ghettos.

    11 Recommend

Fernando NY 2 hours ago

"...rigorously screened applicants..." What does that mean?

    10 Recommend

jb weston ct 2 hours ago

You write:
"Compared with families who applied for housing at the development but ended up elsewhere, the Ethel Lawrence families have shown higher rates of employment and family income, and lower rates of welfare dependency. The parents are more closely engaged in the school lives of their children, who did well academically even though they found themselves in more challenging schools."

Substitute 'charter school' for 'housing' in the first sentence and you have an accurate depiction of the difference charter schools make in the lives of poor minority students. You use one study of one subsidized housing development to argue for an aggressive housing program but you have ignored multiple studies of many successful charter school programs. Why is that? The benefits are similar. Many more students can be accommodated quicker and easier in a charter school expansion than in a subsidized housing expansion.

One is left with the impression that you are willing to advocate for improvement in the lives of poor minority children and families as long as you don't have to confront the teacher unions. Easier to promote 'ending the cycle of racial isolation' through subsidized housing than promote 'ending the monopoly of unionized public education' through charter schools because white suburbia is an easier opponent- for you- than entrenched and unionized educators and administrators.

    10 Recommend

Steve Sailer America 2 hours ago

The worse thing about being poor in modern America is not that you can't afford to buy enough stuff, but that you can't afford to get away from other poor people.

    10 Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

K.S.Venkatachalam India 8 hours ago

In 1965, when Singapore became independent, its premier Lee Kuan Yew came out with a housing policy where it was manadatory for people belonging to different race and religions to live together.The ide behind such a policy was that people of all faiths should live in harmony. Lee's vision of Singapore was one of promoting unity among the three major ethnic groups-Chinese, Malays and Indians.

Lee came out with the concept of the integrated housing scheme because, a year prior to independence, Singapore had witnessed riots between two ethnic groups - Chinese and Malays. Lee felt that the only way to integrate these groups was to make them all live together in harmony in these housing colonies. In one stroke, he prevented ghettoization based on race and religion. It is here the United States and other countries, that have a mix of people belonging to different race and religions, should emulate Lee's model of integrated housing schemes so that people can understand one another, and try to live in peace and harmony.

    10 Recommend

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

The comments section is closed. To send a letter to the editor, write to letters@nytimes.com.

    All 114 Readers’ Picks 88 NYT Picks 3

   Granted, this is the NYT, which on the same day publishes the pronouncement: "Academic success is typically an obsession with parents of color." without rebuttal. Frankly delusional, as its own readers obviously perceive.


What say you? 

comments powered by Disqus