Housing is a fundamental necessity of all people. Access to housing is problematic for many with lower incomes, particularly those with limited English proficiency or disabilities that may require accommodations to even begin the process. Statistical and anecdotal evidence over the years has left little doubt that housing discrimination can take subtle forms that result in material impact.

As professionals in the financial services and mortgage industry we should constantly promote equal treatment and equal access, as well as monitor for disparate impact. Only by doing so, can we determine whether traditional policies and practices need rethinking to prevent unintended consequences.

A disturbing report about housing discrimination on Long Island was recently published by Newsday. Front and center in the report is the real impact and prevalence of subtle but insidious discrimination that had a many homebuyers in the study unaware of the extent of the disparate treatment they received and real estate agents in denial of their behavior. Diversity training observed by the reporters was ineffective, if not a mere roadmap to euphemisms to mask the blatant discriminatory intent.

The Newsday report should sound an alarm throughout the housing industry. It provides a stark picture based on undercover matched pair testing over a three year period on Long Island and should become mandatory reading for financial services and mortgage industry executives as well as for originators and real estate professionals. Disparate impact may not be the exclusive result of statistics, it may be the result of masked disparate treatment. If that is the case, the industry is not just losing out on a lot of good business, it is also contributing to a dangerous trend

Equally disturbing is a state legislative trend amending the definition of race to include hair texture and protective hairstyles. California and New York have recently amend the definition of race used in anti-discrimination laws related to employment, education, housing, and lending. Wisconsin Representative LaKeshia Meyers, explained the chief concerns of AB 440 are related to employment and educational discrimination. Like California and New York, Wisconsin's definition of race affects housing and lending as well. Oregon's legislature introduced HB 4107, with similar definitional amendments to race, but because of multiple definitions it is targeted to employment and education.

At first, I hoped this language was anachronistic and wanted to believe we live in a time when such characteristics are not the basis of discrimination, but I have learned such thinking is a symptom of privilege and it compels me to look deeper into the concerns. It is disturbing that in 2020 legislation of this nature is necessary. But it is necessary because members of our communities suffer on the basis of their skin color and national origins. Just like in the Newsday article with respect to housing, in employment and education hairstyle has become a euphemism for race, skin color and national origin, and that cannot be tolerated.

We are better when we stand together as a diverse society. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of a protected class when seeking to rent or finance housing, or for employment or education. We need to treat others with dignity and respect, pay fair wages and work and build together not apart. Divisiveness is harmful to our business and our communities. I am convinced the housing industry can do more. I hope you will agree and bring about change in your organizations.

Here is a link to the Newsday article.