View Poll Results: Did you take a class in Critical Race Theory?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 3.13%
  • No

    31 96.88%
Page 15 of 36 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 352

Thread: Did you take a class in critical race theory?

  1. Top | #141
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    5,086
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

    Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find



    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lend...an-whites.html
    Residential loans are extremely regulated through fair lending, reg b and etc. As a result, they are very formula driven. Banks have to have set criteria to determine these loans. For example: a borrower may need 700 beacon score, 40% D:I; 10% down to qualify for a loan. If they are denied a loan, it's not because of their race, it's due to them not achieving the criteria. If blacks were systematically denied loans despite exceeding these ratios, they could sue that bank out of existence. There is more lender discretion in commercial loans by the way...
    You're almost there.

    The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.
    Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

  2. Top | #142
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,668
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    You're almost there.

    The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.
    Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.
    Well, that's fine. You're now working on solving the actual problem, the structural issues that underlie these exchanges, even if (in my opinion) you're vastly oversimplifying the process of applying for a loan. CRT does not actually imply any specific solution to the questions it poses; you don't have to censor all discussion of race in order to work toward positivistically increasing Black borrowers' likelihood of attaining fair rates. I think the data or legal case history do not support the notion that the criteria you pose are the only controlling factors in getting a loan, though.'

    Thank you for bringing this up! It's actually a pretty classic case study when it comes to CRT, and may help readers understand a little better why CRT began under the auspices of the legal profession but slowly caught on in the other social sciences as the implications of widespread structural discrimination became clearer and the empirical evidence thereof began to mount.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  3. Top | #143
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    5,086
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    You're almost there.

    The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.
    Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.
    Well, that's fine. You're now working on solving the actual problem, the structural issues that underlie these exchanges, even if (in my opinion) you're vastly oversimplifying the process of applying for a loan. CRT does not actually imply any specific solution to the questions it poses; you don't have to censor all discussion of race in order to work toward positivistically increasing Black borrowers' likelihood of attaining fair rates. I think the data or legal case history do not support the notion that the criteria you pose are the only controlling factors in getting a loan, though.'

    Thank you for bringing this up! It's actually a pretty classic case study when it comes to CRT, and may help readers understand a little better why CRT began under the auspices of the legal profession but slowly caught on in the other social sciences as the implications of widespread structural discrimination became clearer and the empirical evidence thereof began to mount.
    Well, I was a commercial lender for 20 years. I was not a residential lender. And they really are different. But I know banking. Cash flow (D:I); amount down (skin in the game); and beacon score (credit history) is 95% of the criteria to get a residential loan. There's no doubt that people in certain tribes are treated differently by people and institutions. My only issue is that we should recognize that times are getting better. And secondly, we should make sure that fixing the "system" at the institutional level dosn't have unintended negative consequences. One example of this would be lower the criteria for a person in a certain "tribe"; they buy a house that they can't afford, go into default, lose their equity, time, and credit score. In this case, the laxed criteria would hurt the "minority".

  4. Top | #144
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,714
    Rep Power
    19
    Harry's point is that mortgages depend more on "objective criteria" such as credit scores than race, but I do think Politesse is right about how CRT works. The point is that one's general credit rating has to reach a threshold that is much harder for people in certain racial classes. So the system discriminates, not necessarily the actual lender. And that is why Poli's posts are so relevant to this discussion. CRT is portrayed by Republicans and conservatives as an attempt to actually blame racism on white people. That is what drives the hysterical reaction to CRT, which is mischaracterized as having something to do with K-12 education. The fact is that the real CRT is about as far away from its popular reputation as one can get. It has nothing to do with making white people the problem. The demonization of CRT is all about rebranding it. Since almost nobody outside of academia is familiar with the real theory, the rebranding effort is largely successful. Even those demonizing it don't realize how different the real theory is from how they themselves portray it. It is not really about racists in the system. It is about the system itself being racist in a very impersonal way--what some people might term "objective".

  5. Top | #145
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    5,086
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Harry's point is that mortgages depend more on "objective criteria" such as credit scores than race, but I do think Politesse is right about how CRT works. The point is that one's general credit rating has to reach a threshold that is much harder for people in certain racial classes. So the system discriminates, not necessarily the actual lender. And that is why Poli's posts are so relevant to this discussion. CRT is portrayed by Republicans and conservatives as an attempt to actually blame racism on white people. That is what drives the hysterical reaction to CRT, which is mischaracterized as having something to do with K-12 education. The fact is that the real CRT is about as far away from its popular reputation as one can get. It has nothing to do with making white people the problem. The demonization of CRT is all about rebranding it. Since almost nobody outside of academia is familiar with the real theory, the rebranding effort is largely successful. Even those demonizing it don't realize how different the real theory is from how they themselves portray it.
    I don't disagree. However, there is a very large issue here. When does the average republican (or people to the right) understand nuance? They have an incredible difficult time understanding the difference between today's definition of socialism and the traditional definition of socialism. CRT is more complicated and nuanced than socialism! And this group of folks represents a very large, very motivated group of the electorate. I'm sorry to say that but the CRT issue will be a very large loser for the left over time.

  6. Top | #146
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,017
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,758
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Harry's point is that mortgages depend more on "objective criteria" such as credit scores than race, but I do think Politesse is right about how CRT works. The point is that one's general credit rating has to reach a threshold that is much harder for people in certain racial classes. So the system discriminates, not necessary the actual lender. And that is why Poli's posts are so relevant to this discussion. CRT is portrayed by Republicans and conservatives as an attempt to actually blame racism on white people. That is what drives the hysterical reaction to CRT, which is mischaracterized as having something to do with K-12 education. The fact is that the real CRT is about as far away from its popular reputation as one can get. It has nothing to do with making white people the problem. The demonization of CRT is all about rebranding it. Since almost nobody outside of academia is familiar with the real theory, the rebranding effort is largely successful. Even those demonizing it don't realize how different the real theory is from how they themselves portray it.
    I agree with everything you have said, but wonder about that last sentence. There are certainly people at the top orchestrating this propaganda campaign. It isn't clear to me what exactly they know or don't know. The rabble, i.e. the people being targeted by the propaganda, who also demonize CRT, okay, I agree don't know much about it except what they've been told to know which is mostly hyperbole and fantasy. One thing I've come to realize most recently is that the term "systemic racism" has been trendy lately. It's true. It's been in media and I believe it's been talked about in education by staff to each other. Conservatives whose primary principle is one of trying to retain power by the elite see this as a danger and so they've orchestrated an offense against it. They can't come out and say, that anti-racist stuff is terrible because they do not want to be anti-anti-racist or anti-anti-systemic-racist. Instead, they've done some kind of informal marketing research to establish what kind of concept they need to attack and make the opponent and CRT is it. So, the Heritage Foundation's downloadable toolkit for parents is labeled "Reject Critical Race Theory." Someone somewhen had to research CRT during the process of making this propaganda to repackage features of CRT in hyperbolic and misleading ways. I think?

  7. Top | #147
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,547
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

    Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find

    A recent analysis of nearly 7 million 30-year mortgages by University of California at Berkeley researchers found that black and Latino applicants were charged higher interest — an average of nearly 0.08% — and heavier refinance fees when compared with white borrowers. That was in face-to-face transactions. When applying online or through an app, minorities still ended up paying more, though terms were slightly better than when borrowing in person.

    The upshot: Long-standing discrimination faced by people of color in getting a home loan can be reproduced in software-based lending, technology that advocates say is supposed to prevent bias.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lend...an-whites.html

    For refinances specifically, Black borrowers are denied mortgage refinance loans, on average, 30.22% of the time, far higher than the overall denial rate of 17.07%, according to an analysis of the HMDA data by LendingTree, an online mortgage marketplace.

    Part of that high denial rate may be because minority consumers overall have lower incomes and lower credit scores than White consumers. They also tend to live in more disadvantaged neighborhoods with lower home values. None of that was the case with Akridge, whose townhome is in a brand new development in a quiet suburb just outside Washington, D.C.

    Two more lenders called Akridge, and he decided not to disclose his race. Both offered him competitive market rates on a refinance. One even offered to beat the other.
    So you agree it is idiotic (for millenials who are still living at home with their parents that sent them to these elite schools) to tell other people that if they seek to purchase a home (Something they are less motivated than other generations to do) then those that need to get a mortgage (because they don't have a million dollar trust fund) are racists. they are white supremacists for participating in the banking system.

  8. Top | #148
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,547
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by repoman View Post
    I mean we are stuck with blacks here.
    Maybe there's a final solution you could enact.
    For the Jews, it was Israel.
    For the blacks, it was Liberia.

    We didn't kick either of those groups out.

  9. Top | #149
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    25,088
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,565
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

    Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find



    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lend...an-whites.html
    So you agree it is idiotic (for millenials who are still living at home with their parents that sent them to these elite schools) to tell other people that if they seek to purchase a home (Something they are less motivated than other generations to do) then those that need to get a mortgage (because they don't have a million dollar trust fund) are racists. they are white supremacists for participating in the banking system.
    So you agree that it is idiotic to breed unicorns?

    Or is it just something that isn't happening, so the question of whether it is idiotic doesn't apply?

    This is just more #ConservativesGettingMadAtThingsTheyMadeUp

  10. Top | #150
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,547
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    You're almost there.

    The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.
    Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.
    Who walks into a bank to get a loan? Neanderthals. You submit your application online and are approved or not based on your credit report. No demographics are available to the bank prior to closing. If black people happen to be victims of economic inequity then they will, necessarily, fall on the bottom of the pile of people approved for loans. This is due to their economic status, not their skin color. How their skin color affects their economic status PRIOR to being rejected due to their economic status is a very fair question.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •