What we find in housing is that the efforts to include African Americans don't produce the same outcomes.

They produce different outcomes that are deeply scarred by the continuation of racism and discrimination,

even if it's done so within the framework of colorblindness, meaning that they're no longer

restricted covenants telling African Americans where they can or cannot live.

There's no longer state-sanctioned housing discrimination as there was up until 1968.

But even without that, you still have black people who are treated differently

in the housing market. You still have African Americans who are treated differently by the real

estate industry and differently by banks. And part of this is because of the cumulative impact

of racial discrimination and divestment of black enclaves over time

mean that those areas are then viewed by the banking industry, by the real estate industry,

as impaired. And that impairment as a result of discrimination that was practiced

by these very same institutions, as a result of the kind of impairment that is created by

the investment, that becomes the pretext for treating black renters and black homeowners differently from their white peers.

It becomes the basis for underwriting that is defined by risk, that the greater levels of poverty, the greater distress on black housing, the greater concentration of substandard housing

means these areas are considered to be risky. And so that creates the context for higher

interest rates, higher fees, different banking practices that in many ways produce the same

kind of exploitative outcomes

or the same kinds of exploitive practices that create financial disparities in particular financial deficits for African Americans,

what black people up through this period refer to as a race tax.