Can to reverse in this country for a long time we saw ourselves as a country with a racial problem underneath that that there are pure races that exist in this country a white race from europe for a black race from africa and an asian race from asia and the latino race. I dont know where or even that the actual name comes after the attempt to take somebody something from somebody happens so define problem but really it is the things about we continue to do to this very day. But the way that racism is a figure into the idea of race we will talk about a particular power it was created through the housing policies sold talkedabout the place and also in our daily lives. Guest. Let me say the fact that we live separately every metropolitan area has a nervous implications for so maybe you can start there and talk about housing in and how it affects us in our daily lives. Let me say the fact that we live separately every metropolitan area has a nervous implications for those that we face i spent a a good part of the achievement gap of ice wrote about, an African American children. When you concentrate children, with serious social and economic disadvantage isnt in single schools. They cant possibly achieve at the levels that they would achieve, even in those same disadvantages, if these were in schools that those problems werent predominant. So you have African American children, they have generally poor health than white children. So they are upset more often so a teacher can accommodate to that, and they can pay special attention to children who need special help. What if every child in the classes in poor health, than a typical middle class children, there is no way to give every child a special hell or special attention, and the curriculum as a whole has to become remedial. In a few children in the class are stressed because of economic insecurity, because the parents are unemployed and they are acting out of, you can deal with that. If every child in the classes having stress, and attention and much more issues and deal feel it has to be dealt with behavioural issues. So the fact that the children are concentrated with these disadvantages, affects the major education problem we face. We spent a long time in the last few years actually, that we focused on confrontation between police and young African American man that strictly is a function of residential segregation. So we did not have segregation, police would behave to serve and protect their communities. And young men, would not be helpless because they were living in communities, where there were no jobs no access to jobs, in a transportation. And they would be attending schools where teachers have, difficulty accommodating the overwhelming problems that they face. So that problem, stems from residential segregation. We are concerned about growing inequality in this country. Growing inequality and economic and inequality. Its driven in part by residential segregation. We know from research for example, that low income children, who grow up in a middle class neighborhood, are much more likely to be middle class as adults, as children who grow up in the segregated neighborhood. So so many problems we face is a society, stem from segregation, and thats why i thought it was six important to explore how it happens and what we can do about. It so i have a question why is it that segregation, negress necessarily, has to lead to certain outcomes for African Americans, and is it the mere fact of. As i said it is primarily because, lower income children who are concentrated in single classrooms, reinforce each others problems. And prevent teachers from being able to, address those individual problems without disrupting the entire class. If every child in the class, houses problems. Key then it is becoming more difficult to deal. Which i guess you could say that if you could integrate, low income African American children, throughout middle class African American neighborhoods. You would not have those problems. And that is true. But as we all know, Income Distribution in the African American community, is lower than the Income Distribution in the white community. Partly because of the history of residential segregation. That is not a realistic policy alternative at this point. So i would never suggest, and i dont suggest that black children would have to sit next to white children to learn, but low income children, tend to be disproportionately African American in this country. And a half to sit next to middle class children, in order to have a productive learning environment. And it is not related these you know one of the points i think you make is that they come from wealthy households to. Yes they do come from wealthy wealthier health households, and thats the legacy of residential segregation. So please do. I think its really really important its not just living apart. Well the wealth difference is essential, because it will be a long answer. Fasten your seatbelt. Were here to listen to you and its important question. Well thought most people, think of residential segregation today, as something the Supreme Court, coined the term, they call it de facto segregation. It means something that happened, by accident. It happened because of private prejudice, it happened because of Real Estate Agents who steered people to different places, it happened because of People Choose to live with one another of the same race. And under the constitutional theory, that the Supreme Court has adopted, and most of us believe, and i except for the purposes of this argument. Even though may not be a good constitutional theory. You can only have one sided time. So i accept this decision, and under our current constitutional theory, if something happens through private action, there is no constitutional remedy. And if it happens, by state action federal state and local action, not only is their constitutional remedy, but a constitutional obligation for remedy. So and so this wealth gap that you are talking about, as many of the problems ive alluded to already, a it rose because of state sponsored segregation. And that is this you know my book says its the forgotten history. Its not a hidden history, its a forgotten history. So there are two main aspects of it, and like i say i have to describe both of them and how they interact with each other to answer your question. The first is Public Housing, most of us think of Public Housing, as a place where lowing come, and mostly minority families live, and sometimes highrises. Sometimes vertical slums, low income, unemployed, single parents, thats our image of Public Housing. In fact that is not how Public Housing began in this country. Its a recent development Public Housing began, in the new deal, under the Roosevelt Administration during the depression. For white middle class, lower middle class families, primarily who are homeless during the depression. And who had lost their homes during the depression. Some homes, some projects were for African Americans, a few thats what made the Roosevelt Administration progressive. Other administrations, might have billed only for whites. And not a few projects for African American. So in cities across the country, the segregated projects were built. Skipping ahead a bit, it started the new deal Public Housing program, often segregated neighborhoods, that were never segregated before. And in the earliest early 20th century, there were many integrated neighborhoods. And many metropolitan areas of this countrys both in the north and south workers of all races and ethnicities had to live close enough to each other so they could walk to work. They didnt have automobiles, they didnt have one distance transportation. You had neighborhoods that were integrated at the time. We dont have those anymore today. I talk in the book about like student uses autobiography. You can write a biography to. You have. But about his biography, in which he describes how he grew up in an integrated neighborhood. His best friend was polish he dated a jewish girl in high school, first integrated neighborhood in cleveland. The federal government came and demolish that neighborhood and built segregated Public Housing. Segregated the cleveland neighborhood that never knew segregation before, a separate project for blacks, a separate project for whites. This is getting closer to the answer to your question. This went on after world war ii, the defense house and for workers who migrated to the centers for production, where it was built by the federal government. Many of the cities had no African American populations. They were preserving segregation. In california very few African Americans were living their. The big center of shipbuilding for example, the government segregated those sittings. They were completely segregated in popular areas. In 1949, getting closer, there, president truman was proposing a mass expansion of Public Housing programs. Because there is a massive shortage even then. After world war ii, no materials were permitted to be used during the posing construction, all these houses and veterans returning to the country needing housing. So president truman propose this huge program primarily for white families. I just want to emphasize this point, in the early years of Public Housing, cities had social workers visit the homes of africans, and white families to make sure that their children were well behaved and that they had goodenough furniture to put into the Public Housing. They had to show a marriage certificate to prove that they were not, you know what. Thats what Public Housing was. President trump hinged her proposed this bill, and people that wanted to defeat the Public Housing bill, this was for whites primarily. They wanted to defeat the Public Housing bill because they were opposed any public involvement in the housing market. They thought the private sector should take care of it. Even though they werent. So they want to defeat this, and one way was with a poison pill the poison pill amendment, is put on the bill in hopes that the amendment will pass and then it will make the entire thing palpable. You put it amendment onto trumans housing bill and from now on Public Housing had to be integrated. There is no secret about the fact that Public Housing before that was segregated across the country. But they put on an amendment that it had to be integrated. The idea being that liberal support the integration amendment and conservatives were opposed to Public Housing also supported it. The passed in an entire bill knit integration, then the republicans would abandon the bill the bill would fail. Liberals in congress fought against this, led by hubert humphrey. And a great liberal, they fought against the integration amendment. It was for the 19 49th housing act was passed to continue the policy of segregation that the federal government had followed. That is how we got these giant towers, the Robert Taylor holmes, perhaps the most wellknown, see i am getting closer. This was segregated. It when you think of these towers, theyre for low income black people but there for African Americans, the other tower was for whites. Not de facto. Not because African Americans happen to apply to this one. They were segregated. They were filled this way. After a few years, the white tower, it was vacant. Largely vacant. And the other tower had long waiting lists. Getting closer. So, why is it that after all of these years the white Public Housing had vacancies and black Public Housing had long waiting lists . There is another federal program led by the Housing Administration that subsidize the movement of white families out of central cities into a Single Family homes in the suburbs, that were exclusively white. The federal government guaranteed loans to mass production workers. The most favorites is love it. They couldve never symbol the capital to build 17,000 homes were which they had no buyers. He got loans guaranteed by the federal government on explicit condition, explicit condition, that no homes be sold African Americans. And that every home in the development had to have a clause in the deed that you cannot result African Americans. Now i can get to your question. The entire country was suburban ice in this way. The whites moved out of the cities, the African Americans had to remain in cities and became poor. As well as the same time the whites where there. The country bucking suburban iced. In 1947, when that developments was built. Those homes built for seven or 8000 dollars apiece. Todays money that would be about 100,000 dollars. African americans who are equally capable of paying that money for a house, especially if they had him a mortgage, or a va, no down payment policy. In fact, they paid less in their monthly carrying charges for the houses and they were for their rent in Public Housing. Less to own their home. Today, those homes sold for 300 or 400,000 dollars. Heres your question. The African American families who are prohibited from moving into those homes and rented apartments in the city, did not gain two or 300,000 dollars in equity over the last two generations. Wait families games that equity and today those homes are unaffordable to working class people. 100,000 dollars in 1940, in our terms, was twice the National Median income. Working class family could not for those homes. Today those homes sell for seven times the National Median income. Working class families cant even afford to work to suburbs. So today, nationwide, we have a ratio of income. African American Income is about 60 of white income. Well for African Americans is about 7 less than white what health. Most people gain their wealth through housing. This is an enormous difference between 60 income ratio and 5 wealth ratio. That is almost entirely attributed to unconstitutional federal housing policy that was practice in the 19 thirties forties and fifties. The wealth gap was attributable to segregation. Interesting. It is wonderful how you synthesize this history, where you have African Americans confined to one track of housing and white americans are gifted a another track. Its a way to build well for one group. States states subsidize this opportunity. Not private, this was a state subsidized opportunity. I wonder which African Americans were excluded from, i agree with you in terms of consequences being profound, but it begs the question why . Why was this done . That is a difficult question to answer, thats not what researchers, thats not the papers or the archives. I can speculate. That is something for journalists to speculate. I think there were several reasons, we have to remember that the Roosevelt Administration progressive though was on economic issues, was a still expression of the white anglosaxon ruling class. You are familiar with their example of not able to admit nazi germany immigrants. They think that whites are superior race and it is not surprising. There has been a lot written about how, in many cases, the Roosevelt Administration on willingly or until may compromises with democrats, to excuse African Americans from benefits. Americans were secure that does not apply to housing. Southern democrats were perfectly content to have integrated housing in the north, social securities a national program. So we can exclude African Americans nationwide, some democrats were perfectly willing to have integration in the north as long as they could pervert preserve segregation in the south. There is never a dispute of slavery being prohibited in the north. Basically the north was free to integrate so long as the south could preserve segregation. That doesnt explain this housing issue. The other reason i think is that, maybe thats not a reason to answer, maybe its the problem is different. We have segregated formally every other american way of life. We desegregated buses. The next day they could sit on the bus. We desegregated lunch counters, the next day African Americans could sit down at a lunch counter. We desegregated schools. We disaggregate neighborhoods, what happens . How are we gonna put our heads around what were gonna do. But we have passed a law and ban on segregation. It is very difficult to think about this problem. I think as a result, weve avoided it and come up with this mid to protect us for thinking about it. The myth is that it happened by private action. We call it de facto. Therefore, if it happened by accident, and done by accident, we dont have to worry about it. What about the citizens, and how did they evade what of the things i found that was powerful about this narrative is that there was this common idea where racism is basically linked to a conservative south. And everything bad sort of flows out of that. What does it mean that you have a situation in which, not just an administration that is praised by liberals, but when folks want to critique barack obama, theyve compare him to roosevelt. This is seen as the liberal stand of high point of 20 century progressiveness. What does that mean that that was that exact point that a lot of this policy that deprived African Americans from when it actually began. What does that tell us about the possibilities in terms of, i guess, leading ourselves. It is so pervasive across. Well i dont know that i would go that far. You know the new deal, was the First Administration that was actively involved in the American Economy. So, there was no opportunity for employment and these policies beforehand its not that previous administrations, were less racist. Although somewhere and some werent. The wilson administration, was explicitly racist and the harding and coolidge, and hoover, a little bit less so but not that they were involved in the American Economy. It was the new deal, that first got involved in the American Economy and got involved in housing. The first civilian housing was built in the new deal. There was none before that. So i dont know that this happened because the and instruction was more racist than others, and in fact it was relatively progressive, and i hate to say this but it was relatively progressive on race, because they built some housing for African Americans the previous administration, wouldve built only admission housing for white families. So i dont know so if we follow the implication of your, work much of the inequality that we see between African Americans and whites, can be traced to this progressive action. Yes absolutely, but that is because the inequality could only be created by government, if it was involved in the economy. And if it wasnt involved in the economy, it couldnt create this equality. So the opportunity to be involved in the economy, that gave the opportunity to segregate. So what does this tell us to do now . Well you know, as you heard i gave a lot of lectures as i was doing this research, and wrote articles. And people always ask me that question. I didnt want to answer it. Finally i got tested enough that i threw a chapter in, and a book about remedies. But i dont think that we can really creatively think about remedies, until we disabuse ourselves of this myth of private causation. Because so long as we have this consensus, and its across the political spectrum. Its it conservatives and liberals alike that use this de facto segregation. And most of this room thinks of it as de facto segregation. Once we have that consensus, we are hobbled to think of remedies. And i will give you a radical answer, which i think is absurd, because there is no political consensus that would support it. But i gave you the example before of. This history, was state sponsored, segregation, it was unconstitutional. A violation of the 14th amendment, and i argue in the book even the 13th amendment. We might, do the following. Congress might you know 15 of the metropolitan area, is African AmericanCongress Might develop a program, where they buy up the homes for 400,000 dollars, and three cells and two African Americans for 100,000 dollars. That would be a constitutionally, justifiable remedy, in terms of you know in light of the history of the previous crimes. But i thought i would never say that in public but i just did. But it cant me that you know that kind of thing cant be debated, unless we understand the history. So what we should be doing now, is trying to do everything we can, and you are star in this, to make people familiar with the history, and your article about chicago, and the case for reparations, you know a writer for the New York Times magazine. Theyve been writing about it we need to talk about this, make this part of our National Conversation so we can begin to conceive of these remedies. So maybe remedies will people will think of that i havent thought of, once we can have a conversation about it. But we can have the conversation about it, so long as we have the smith. And the me at this one, thing a simple thing, one of the things that reported in the book, is that i examined almost commonly used High School Textbooks in the country today. And everyone lies about this history. They lie about it. And thats a very simple thing to fix if we dont fix it the next generation is going to be in a no better position than the previous one has been. But the most widely used American History textbook, its about 1000 pages, and kids carried around their backpacks. There has one paragraph, in the entire thousand page book, devoted to segregation of the north. Within that paragraph, theres one sentence devoted to housing, and the sentence reads as follows. In the north, African Americans found themselves forced into segregated housing. Thats it. Passive voice, no discretion of who did the forcing, how it happened, and they woke up one morning and looked at the window and said what we do here we are. In the segregated neighborhood. And so long as we are teaching our young people that, theres very little hope of having a serious conversation about remedies. And i think you said in your articles, the first step has to be understanding this history before we can seriously talk about remedying. It agreed, and i am being instructed to now throw it to the audience. Well take some questions from the audience. And now i dont have a mic but thats okay. We can share. Ok valerie. That, yes i was wondering if you could comment on housing segregation being resolved partially due to the fact that, many gia is returning from the war, they got the gi bill and i think they also got money for a mortgage, that least i understood that. While African Americans also receive that gi bill, that would give them alone but they could find a school that would take them. And how does that compare to the disparity, and accumulation. Versus what you just laid out . Well in the book i talk about ive been writing about this for a number of years. I got an email from somebody. And she told me her family story. I talk to members of her family, and told the story in the book. An African American, veteran. Of world war ii. Very ambitious and talented, and he bought a truck, a surplus army truck. Recondition them to be able to haul sheet rock. And other construction materials. And he was a veteran. He got a contract with let it, to pull level ten. But he wasnt able to buy a home there. He was better off financially than many of the people, who purchased homes in leather ten. The white people. They were working class men, from the war. So the gi bill, was available in theory to African Americans, but if the subdivision of the federal government that they were creating, oneself homes to them, then the availability of the g8 bill, one do much good. Thank you this is been wonderful appreciated. I love your book. About so many copies. I live locally, i live in this neighborhood. And i am increasing, i grew up in washington on two point circle, on one side of the circle was mixed, and the other side of the circle was mixed. By the time i graduated from skull college, it is changed. And all of the Dupont Circle had gentrified. My current question is, what is the impact of zoning. For example i live in this neighborhood, i have a perfectly acceptable ground floor flat. That i can afford to rent to a family, they could go to local school, and they could live downstairs in a one bedroom, with a big living room, and dining room kitchen. Beautiful garden. But i cannot do it, because of zoning. I would like to do that, i would like to encourage my neighbors to do that. Instead of building, this god awful homeless shelter, with cubicles for people to live in, where they have no access to fresh food, no access to jobs and suppose you know they have to show up their kids from here all the way across town. The amount of money that they are spending, they could buy, and help people in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. They could redo their basements, and provide inclusive housing, and get people on the right track to independence. Instead of continuing slavery. By putting people in boxes in the Police Parking lot. All right, laughs . Let me talk about zoning in more general terms, as the term i will use is exclusionary zoning. Zoning that prohibits, i dont know the particulars of your neighborhood, i wont try to find out the next two seconds but, many many white neighborhoods, white suburbs in this country, have exclusionary zoning system, prohibiting, im not talk about poor people, prohibit the construction of Single Family homes, and prohibit the construction of town houses, or apartment units. Those zoning ordinances, and this goes down to your question, im finished with your neighborhood now im going to talk about zoning, those zoning ordinances, dates back to the prenew deal era. They were specifically racially motivated. Which is something that another part of the history that weve forgotten. In 1917, the Supreme Court ruled that cities cannot establish racial zones. They can say that African Americans, could live here, and whites could live here. Actually, the way in which these ordinances were written at the Supreme Court, prohibited in 1917, should have the neighborhoods in urban areas were, because the ordinances prohibited African Americans to move onto a block which was majority white. So African Americans could not move on to, it and whites could not move on to the black streets. So they have normal a normal difficulty in enforcing. This so you know you have one block, that was an African American church, and the view is the reverse, but and the minister moved out of there to have some repairs done, but he couldnt move back in because the white nature of the bloc made it illegal for him to live in his own church area. So they rule that unconstitutional. Not because of integration us, but the Supreme Court for those of you as you know some American History in that time, from the beginning of the 20th century through to the mid 19 thirties, its main role in life, was to protect Property Rights. And the zoning ordinances, interfered with the Property Rights of the homeowner to sell who to whoever they wanted. So that was the basis of the decision. City leaders, who wanted to segregate their communities were panic by this decision. Because how are they going to do it, without these ordinances. And in 1920, when warren hardening was elected pair president , the secretary of commerce was herbert hoover. And herbert hoover, as establish a committee and zoning. And it was made up of prominent segregationists. Planners, who in the cities they came from, had designed racially designated zones. But now that the Supreme Court now prohibited it, they came up with economic zones, as a way to keep out African Americans. And they published a pamphlet on zoning, that was distributed to every suburb in the country. Every jurisdiction in the country, telling them which zones would exclude low income families. They didnt say they want to exclude African Americans, and they were also said they were also concerned about it or irish and italian immigrants. But its very similar to, weve had a recent discussion in this country about President Trumps muslim ban. Where the courts have said that on its face seemed and discriminatory, but President Trump and his campaign, made somebody discriminatory statements, that we understand what this is really about. The same thing is true of the zoning pamphlets, and the zoning laws that were talking about. In 1926 the Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to and suburbs to impose this kind of zoning it was the only time, in 40 years, maybe 35 years, that they upheld a policy on policy rates. Interfered with the right of the homeowners, it interfered with the developer to builds a Single Family home on a small plot size, the only time was when they upheld the right of cities to his own out for lower income families. A lower court judge said this is designed to exclude colored and immigrant families. And that is unconstitutional according to a 1917 decision, but the Supreme Court ignored it and found so since then we have had zoning across the country. We say racially motivated initially, so we adopted zoning ordinance. Instead of being racially discriminatory. There is a big aspect of racial motivation behind the zoning lies. It contributed a great deal old to maintain the segregation that we had. Hi, my question is what are your thoughts about remedies. I know philadelphia has policy and im not sure if it is still active today where they are tearing down those big Public Housing units. And then they are Public Housing authority is buying Dilapidated Properties and building duplexes or Single Family homes in the core of the city. I guess it is like a lease to buy program were low income families can buy those homes that the Public Housing authority has built. Do you think that is a violet replicated will model for other cities . Meghan . When do you get a chance . I didnt read the book. These policies go on around the country. Typically what happens is that some families do get the participation of these rent to own programs, but the vast majority of families who are displaced dont. The density is much lower. So they wind up going somewhere else. Where do they go . They go to the only place that will accept them and these are new, segregated communities. So many people wonder, when we first started being aware of this as a country again, after Michael Brown was killed by a policeman in missouri, how about a suburb like ferguson . The majority are black. I thought black communities were in cities, not in suburbs. It happened not because of that particular rent to own program, because a lot of programs like that where neighborhoods get gentrified and in the case of st. Louis, they demolished a large swath of African American communities that have been created in the central city. So they demolished these areas in order to build that gateway arch, like half of mcdonalds sign. They introduce you to the west coast, or the western states. So they demolished all these areas. And where people going to go . They got vouchers instead of Public Housing, they got voters. Typically known as section eight vouchers, the Voucher Program is one in which the housing authority, the federal money, gives family a subsidy so that they can spend no more than 30 of their income on a market rental at the average rental community. That is a fine system except that there are curious exceptions to the fair housing act. So landlords are prepared to discriminate against section eight housing vouchers. In st. Louis, they used this example in all of these African American neighborhoods in downtown st. Louis were demolished and sometimes for housing, middle class housing. Or lower middle class housing. Sometimes from universities, or a big highway exchanges. African americans had to go to the only places where there vouchers were accepted, and it turned out st. Louis, the town of ferguson and there is another city next to it and a couple of towns that would accept these vouchers and these became new segregated communities. This is happening everywhere in the country. Everywhere where we get gentrification and historically we got urban renewal, the sixties was characterized by black removal. Everywhere we kind of got these programs, it just displaced the minority population. Lots of people talk about gentrification because it creates diverse communities, but it is only transitional integration. Gradually those communities become unaffordable to the people who used to live there. They cant pay property taxes there anymore. So they are forced to move to these new segregated communities. The program is fine, except its not part of a broad plan of integration. It helps a few people who get those rent to own homes, but it is not part of a broader plan to desegregate major areas. That is required if we want to deal with this problem successfully. Im really impressed with your article, but what struck me when i read it is that black nurse creates whiteness. Discrimination against black people is required for white people to have White Privilege. And the fact that democrats did so much of desegregation and affirmative action and etc, has made it impossible for poor whites to have a white home and a white school at their low income. Which means that they definitely need donald trump. And that is what they are voting for. Am i wrong . Is there some hope for this country other than right now, i am assuming that in ten years hispanics will be white. Because white people are not fools. So is it true that it is essential that black people be the negative out party, so that there is white consistency in this country . It is certainly two sides of the same coin. You cant have superiority without inferiority and vice versa. So yes, there is a White Privilege that does depend on black subjugation. The reality is, as you alluded to, poor white are much more likely to be integrated into middle class White Communities then blacks are. We dont have, we have lots of poor whites in this country. And the metropolitan areas. We dont have white ghettos. We are mixed in with the broader population. Yes, i agree with you. I think it is very important to disapprove the motion that donald trump was a voted in by white people. The average trump voter is 72,000 dollars, that is way above any sort of income middle class. That is a relatively high income for middle class. It is important that we not dump this at the feet of poor white people. Donald trump swept white people, across the board, gender, class, education. He just won. We are going to take three more questions. Thank you both for your books, they are amazing and powerful. I agree with the premise that the law has pushed us through varying programs to segregating areas. How does that reinforce our de facto segregation, the choice that we make. Our laws are based on our personal choices as a society. That we want things to be a certain way. We engage with our senators, our government, to make the laws that we have. An example of this is the Seattle Public Schools case in 2007, seattle residents of the Public School board decided they wanted to integrate their schools voluntarily. They had a program in which they are going to play students based on race based on racial balance as an expression of how they want the law to be. But the de facto preferences of a group of parents who wanted segregation to remain suit, with the Supreme Court. And they said yes, it is unconstitutional. This defect oh racism perpetrate itself, how do we stop it . That case that youre talking about, the Supreme Court decision was based on exactly this mid. It is one of the things that sent me on this book when i read this decision. I was shocked, i wasnt surprised that the chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion saying, the rule of seattle was segregated de facto and theres nothing you could do about it. I was surprised that the justice wrote the dissenting opinion in which he accepted this myth of de facto segregation. His argument was, if you have de facto segregation you should be permitted to integrate but you cant be compelled to. That was the basis of his dissent. I read that decision and i was pretty upset when i read the dissent. I wasnt surprised by roberts opinion. For example, i remember reading about a case in 1955, win in louisville, kentucky a black family bought a home, not poor people, middle class people. This was a navy worker. And he bought a home in a white suburb and the state of kentucky prosecuted, convicted and jailed the white seller for sedition. That didnt seem to be like de facto segregation. That kind of thing sent me off. I also know for example in seattle that william boeing, who owned a boeing company, were developers of suburbs around seattle that were racially exclusive using these guarantees. That did not seem to me like de facto segregation. That parents decision, unless we disabuse ourselves from the mid of de facto segregation, we cant make the most nominal process that they schoolboys are trying to make. Challenging this myth is a first step we need to take. You need to do it as well. Every one of you lives in a School District that is using textbooks that are lying about this history. Every one of you can do something about that. Last time i take the microphone. Honestly, this is why its so important to support richards work and why his work is so significant. You have to consider, Supreme Court justices are products of some of the finest educational systems in the world. And yet, they literally do not understand in this case a significant portion of American History. If that is true at the Supreme Court level, god knows what is true when you start going down the ladder who have to people who have not had access to those institutions. The myth is defeat. The parallel i think about is win john roberts is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. America is not discriminating on the basis of race, and it is more racism. It is never a accurate representation of a race. It is the ideology, it is the basis. We dont understand how this is a created thing. That is the implicit. That its just to facto and people urge wandering around and doing stuff and so government cant address, it government created it. We have a responsibility. He get to that midalmost being asked for solutions are still way behind. Given that we still live in a world where we have a government agency, i was going to ask if you and what you would do, but i wont do that to you. If today i was the president s and i put you in charge, what would you do . I hate to sound like a broken record, but i was in charge of hug, i would appoint a secretary whod go around the country to give speeches about the history of segregation. Nothing else would fly. In 1968, nixon was elected president. I have written about this. He appointed his