The Effect of Racial Profiling on Access to Affordable Housing

Injustice: The Effect of Racial Profiling on Access to Affordable Housing

Name

Professor

Class

April 10, 2022

Introduction

Racism, both systemic and institutionalized, is profoundly established in the culture of the United States and other parts of the world. Whereas racial profiling relies on visual signals to confirm or speculate on a person’s ethnicity, linguistic profiling relies on aural leads that may comprise ethnic association. Still, it can be equally applied to pinpoint other linguistic smaller groups within a particular lexical group. Baugh’s (1983) early studies on African American Vernacular English (AAVE) was heavily centered on “style-shifting” between African Americans. Baugh noted that most African American grown-ups would alter their talk to meet their current social surroundings during years of fieldwork. (1)

“Linguistic profiling,” or determining an individual’s ethnicity based on the tone of their articulation and using that knowledge to show prejudice based on ethnic background, has been reported in the house lease market. This paper looks at how this happens in the housing sector. According to an examination of matched-paired tests carried out by fair-housing corporations, home insurance brokers can nose out someone one`s race over phone, and this detail influences the services rendered to person who ask about buying a home coverage policy. While adopting “non-standard” or distinct from typical American English accents when enquiring about a property for rent, the property becomes unavailable for no apparent reason. This is due to property owners detecting characteristics of specific languages and linking them with unfavorable racial stereotypes.

Discriminatory Linguistic Profiling

Linguists have long researched linguistic stereotypes. Lippi-Green (1997) presents self-sufficient proof of dialect or accent bias against speakers of varying ethnic accents, racial, and regional in the U.S. During the O. J. Simpson trial, public attention was drawn to racial identification based on speech. Mr. Cochran, Simpson’s African American counsel, vehemently denied that one could infer racial identification from words (California v Orenthal James Simpson, 1995). In the matter of Clifford v Kentucky (1999), the Kentucky Supreme Court used language profiling to condemn an appellant of African American origin who a white police officer overheard. So far, this matter has upheld the admissibility of ethnic profiling on the basis of the words of a lay attestor. The matter is obscure for apparent grounds in comparison to the Simpson trial’s worldwide exposure, yet the practice of linguistic profiling was no less severe.

Baugh (2005) became aware of linguistic profiling when he relocated to Palo Alto in pursuit of housing that could accommodate his whole household. Throughout all phone calls to prospective landlords, he presented his situation as a visiting professor at CASBS, consistently using his “professional voice,” which he is informed, “sounds white.” Although no potential property owner ever inquired about his ethnicity, he was unexpectedly denied access to housing four times when he arrived for his arranged interview. Although he suspected that these refusals were directly related to his ethnic background, which was proven via visible ethnic profiling, his typical English eloquence was (and still is) sufficient that linguistic profiling was avoided since he sounded white.

Anita Henderson went to a major home unit to ask about flats while looking for an apartment in Philadelphia. She was shown to the costliest suite in the premises and informed that it was the only one accessible for the coming month and that no other flats would be obtainable. Nonetheless, the following day, when she was on the phone using her finest Standard American English and asking about flats in the same building, Henderson found out that numerous cheaper suites were suddenly accessible, and she was more than welcome to check them out (Henderson, 2001).

Discrimination in the Housing Market

When challenged with proof that indicates that linguistic profiling was applied to refuse housing, insurance, or leases to minority ethnic groups, litigants frequently fell back to Cochran’s claim that one cannot draw any ethnic or racial inference on the basis of talk heard over the phone, or, in Mr. Cochran’s matter, via an intercom network.

Discrimination in the housing market manifests itself in various ways and has a lengthy record in our nation and the Bay Area. As a result of this issue, the percentage of Black Americans who own their own home is frighteningly low. According to Redfin, only 44 percent of Black Americans would purchase a home in 2020, representing a nationwide lag. When compared to white Americans, this figure is 74%. Systemic racism has perpetuated disparities in homeownership rates throughout the Bay Area, and Black households who can buy a home frequently face discrimination (Glover, 2021). In accordance to the National Association of Realtors, only 34% of Black Californians own a property. These figures are even lower in the Bay Area. According to Redfin, only 33% of Black residents of San Francisco own a home in comparison to 61% of white San Franciscans. In San Jose, the black homeownership rate is 31 percent, while the white homeownership rate is 65 percent (Glover, 2021). And black applicants for mortgage loans are declined at three times the rate of white candidates (National Association of Realtors, 2021).

Another factor restricting Black property ownership is a burdensome debt due to the wealth inequality perpetuated by systematic racism. Minority home seekers continue to face subtle discrimination, according to HUD User (2022). Researchers discovered that, when all three stages of the paired-testing procedure are included, the marginalised are at a drawback in comparison to whites, mainly in two of the three stages: Hispanic, Asian, and Black renters were just as possibly as white renters to have meetings with rental brokers during the rental inquiry process. During these encounters, renters of color took in about 11.4 percent fewer homes and were offered 4.2 percent negligible units than similarly competent white renters. Hispanic renters were informed of 12.5 percent negligible units and established 7.5 percent small number of units than white renters. Asians were shown 9.8 percent negligible accessible units and were informed about 9.8 percent negligible obtainable units than whites.

Hispanic and Asian homebuyers were equally likely to secure a meeting with a sales representative during the inquiry process; nevertheless, colored homebuyers were marginally less likely than white homebuyers to do so. Black purchasers learned approximately 17% fewer homes and were shown 17.7% negligible number of properties than similarly eligible white homebuyers. Asian purchasers were offered 18.8 percent fewer properties and knew about 15.5 percent fewer available homes than whites. Hispanics and whites did view or learn about remarkably contrasting units of residences (HUD User, 2022).

Minority home seekers with easily recognizable ethnicities faced higher prejudice than minorities who may be taken for white. Concerning guiding, most available homes for rent and buying presented to the testers were in majority-white districts; nevertheless, the distinction in the ethnic mix of the communities displayed to minority home seekers and white home seekers was not substantial. Likewise, there were no statistically outstanding contrasts in the occurrence and intensity of prejudice by urban region or area. Generally, having their searches constrained by discriminatory tactics of deals and rental brokers raises the expense and time the marginalised must expend on locating a decent house and limits the options accessible to them and their households (HUD User, 2022).

The NFHA realised that (2) numerous potential renters and home buyers were ignorant of the illegitimacy of linguistic profiling, so they created a string of adverts warning Latino and African American populace to be cautious of these subtle kinds of bias, as shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2. (https://web.stanford.edu/~jbaugh/Black%20Linguistics.pdf)

Testers for the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) typically strive to establish the reality of linguistic profiling related to varied kinds of housing prejudice without the assistance of linguistic studies. According to Horwitz (1999), the scenario is as follows: Testers for the non-profit organization (the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington) reached out to more than 60 insurance companies to inquire about renters’ cover. Feedback to Latino and Black caller-ups were contrasted to reactions to white callers in 150 cases, and 45 percent demonstrated bias.

There have been federal laws enacted by the Unite States Housing and Development (HUD) Department, such as The Fair Housing Act in 1968, that ban discrimination against home searchers. The act’s success was that it reduced segregation to some measure. Despite this, underprivileged communities continue to face subtle racial bias and discrimination. One of the impediments is the regulatory changes implemented under Trump’s presidency, one of which is a provision that makes it more difficult for anyone to submit a complaint against housing discrimination alleging “disparate impact” (McQueen, 2022).

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that linguistic profiling will continue as long as human language persists, owing to our superior aural abilities as a species. The task for Americans is to be wise, patient, and tolerant of individuals whose linguistic origin vary significantly from our own. This will emphasize the advantages of favorable language profiling while rejecting the practice of biased linguistic profiling, which stokes the smoldering remains of ethnic strife.

References

Baugh, J. (2005). Linguistic profiling. In Black linguistics (pp. 167-180). Routledge.

Baugh, J. (1983). Black Street Speech: Its History, Structure, and Survival, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

California v Orenthal James Simpson (1995). Los Angeles District Court.

Clifford v Kentucky (1999). 7 SW 3d 371, Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Glover J. (2021). Black California couple lowballed by $500K in-home appraisal, believe race was a factor. Retrieved from https://abc7news.com/black-homeowner-problems-sf-bay-area-housing-discrimination-minority-homeownership-anti-black-policy/10331076/

Henderson, A. (2001). “Put your money where your mouth is: hiring managers` attitudes toward African American-Vernacular English, “Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Horowitz, S. (1999) “Minority renters face insurance bias, “ Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-09/29/074r-092999-idx.html

HUD User (2022). Subtle Forms of Discrimination Still Exist for Minority Homeseekers. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_research_062813.html

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.

McQueen, M. P. (2022). Housing discrimination: What is it, and what can you do about it? Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/housing-discrimination-what-can-you-do-5074478

COMMENTS:

(1) This idea is disconnected from the overall paragraph. Make the connection more explicit. -0.5

(2) This seems to be a different subsection – Current interventions