 Let me introduce myself. I'm Lellingby Boyce, and I'm your presenter for today. You're going to see my name flash on the screen again in a moment. But let me say for now, in addition to welcoming you and thanking you for being here, today's program, as well as future programs I do during the month of February, will fall under the rubric, Understanding U.S. Race Relations. To better understand U.S. race relations, I, your presenter, Lellingby Boyce, will share insights and ideas from a recent bestseller on the topic of race relations and segregated neighborhoods. And you see there the title of the book. Oh, there we go. There it is, the title, The Color of Law. A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. It's done by Richard Rothstein, a very distinguished social scientist, and this book was published in 2017. Before I move on, I'm going to look at the word forgotten. Richard Rothstein is the first to say he has not unearthed any new information. It's been out there. Social scientists have known it for years. He's rebirthing it because he thinks we now need to have the light shown more strongly on this area. This is an extremely well researched, very readable history detailing how local, state, and federal governments promoted and sustained segregated neighborhoods. Now, before we jump into this heavy topic, I thought it would help us to have a little warm-up. And Susan, you have an edge. I will ask you to choose whatever first name you want to be known by and introduce yourself to your nearest neighbor or neighbors to discuss the following topic next. I'll let you read through this warm-up and then I'll ask you for questions. Okay, I want to say fate is funny. The first time I presented this material, it was shortly after Las Vegas. I didn't plan Florida, but here we are. Does anyone have any questions about what's being requested? Okay, I'm going to give you a few minutes to introduce yourself to your neighbor, share your ideas. When you think you have done it, just look at me and your fresh faces will tell me it's time to share with the group. And I assume that you all have heard that within the past few days at least a half dozen businesses that have sponsored activities with the NRA have withdrawn their sponsorship. Now when corporate America weighs in with the dollars, we're moving significantly. It's not that they're concerned about guns, they're concerned about their bottom line. And they're looking at their pocketbooks and they're gambling that the students are going to win. There is someone who hasn't spoken yet, I'm going to call on then. Yes, on the screen now is an example of what I call the arc of the moral universe. You've all heard this, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. And this is a pleasant reminder that with chipping away as best we can, which I am doing today actually, chipping away. We start accumulating small successes and eventually they lead. The arc actually will bend the way we want. Sometimes it's erratic, but you understand the situation in the U.S. This occurred in 2016. We have attorney Elizabeth Julian on the left and home resident Bernstein Williams. And they sued HUD, Housing and Urban Development, the federal government, and Dallas over discrimination. And they won in 2016. I'm not sure how long the suit went on, but it says here, and this is from Rothstein's book, by the way, a settlement enabled Bernstein Williams to move to a little-class neighborhood and raise two college-bound children. So even when you have money, even when you have education, it's not always easy to move into the neighborhood you want. Speaking as a black person, I will say, you never graduate from blackness. You never climb a salary ladder to the point where you're no longer black. I remember in the past eight years or so, Oprah was over, Oprah Winfrey was over in England, and she wanted to buy a purse in a certain store. And it's kind of handbag I would not even look at. We're talking in the hundreds of dollars. They wouldn't let her in the store. They just looked at her and knew she could not afford it. And that's a prime example of what I'm talking about. But we have positives to look forward to. Also, I'm going to start reading from Rothstein at this point. And the major thing I'm going to present today is his thesis, his ultimate position on this issue of segregated neighborhoods. When, from 2014 to 2016, riots in places like Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Charlotte captured our attention. Most of us thought we knew how these segregated neighborhoods with their crime, with their violence, with their anger and poverty, we thought we knew how they came to be. Next, this is Rothstein continuing. Rothstein next lists five examples of de facto segregation. But first he says de facto segregation, we tell ourselves, has various causes. Next, this is the first cause he lists. Next, this is the next cause he lists. Next, we're going to talk a lot about redlining today. Would anyone care to volunteer their definition of redlining? Redlining. And by the way, I have to say, when I turned on the radio first thing this morning, I got up a little late at 10 o'clock, and I turned on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. And what was the feature program? Redlining, modern day redlining. I said, thank you, Amy. And I'm going to get into a definition further on. We have a whole section on it, but let us just say quickly that, hello, it's nice to see you. I haven't seen you in a long time. Redlining refers to lenders of money and insurance companies who refuse to lend to you or insure you because you live in a certain district that they deem unfavorable. And we'll spend some time on how these districts got to be considered unfavorable. One thing you will find, Rothstein and other social scientists concerned with this matter, they will emphasize that what has happened in the past with redlining has lingered on with us today. And on Amy Goodman's program, they were giving some fine examples of it. Okay, next. Now I want to pause on this one and discuss some things that I rarely hear discussed. Black families prefer to live with one another. Let me start by saying the latest reports I've heard say that most black families prefer to live in mixed neighborhoods, neighborhoods that reflect the overall US population. And I have to say coming from the Bay Area and loving San Francisco, where I always felt part of the greater world, I do miss that in Davis. And by the way, I didn't move to Davis, I landed in Davis. I'm one of the refugees from the Loma Prieta earthquake. And since I come from Berkeley, a university town, and I had to choose between Sacramento, Davis, and Fairfield, I decided Davis would be the best fit, I think. They all had to have beyond Amtrak because I'm handicapped and I don't drive. Well, let me continue here expanding on this black families prefer to live with one another. I have written notes to myself that says, and whereas some black families prefer to live with one another, there are other black families who are best described as preferring not to live among whites. This latter group can best be explained by Rothstein's chapter number nine titled State Sanctioned Violence. I'm going to pull the book out now. Here it is. Otherwise, I would not be able to get to this material. There's so much in this book. But it is enlightening for a lot of people who don't know, understand the violence. We understand that the South held a reign of terror over the blacks first as slaves and then later on as after they were released. But a lot of people don't know about the violence that has taken place in the 20th century outside of the South, especially when blacks who did have the income moved into neighborhoods that had been exclusively white. Here's Rothstein. In the Los Angeles area, cross burnings, dynamite bombings, rocks thrown through windows, graffiti and other acts of vandalism, as well as numerous phone threats, greeted African Americans who found housing in neighborhoods just outside their existing areas of concentration. In 1945, an entire family, father, mother and two children, were killed when their new home in an all-white neighborhood was blown up. Now mind you, Los Angeles is not the deep South. Of the more than 100 incidents of move-in bombings and vandalism that occurred in Los Angeles between 1950 and 1965, only one led to an arrest and prosecution. And that was because the California Attorney General took over the case after local police and prosecutors claimed they were unable to find anyone to charge. Now Rothstein gives many examples of this occurring, but let me get back now to what I was saying about blacks who prefer not to live among whites. The South has had a long history of terrorism beginning with the arrival of the first transatlantic slaves. And when this century's long terrorism, when these centuries long terrorism combined with 20th century terrorism, it left some blacks viewing whites as demonic and not to be sought after as neighbors. People don't talk about that very often, but some blacks function with a deep trauma. I can remember living in a very lovely neighborhood in Berkeley. The Elmwood, I was in an apartment there and discovered that about a half block away, a house was going up for sale at a delightful price for that neighborhood. So my grandmother had been complaining about her neighborhood. We really liked the house a lot, but the drug dealers had moved into the neighborhood. And I thought, this was her opportunity. She could be the down payment, I could be the monthly. But she looked at the house and it had a lot of nice features. She just couldn't deal with the idea of living where she was surrounded by white people. And I had a friend who died recently at age 98. She and her husband had been very hardworking and very money wise and could easily have afforded a home in a nice white middle class neighborhood. But that was not a move she would ever consider. Her husband, who died many years before she did, he would never consider it either because he was part of a family that was run out of the south. They were given 12 hours to get out of town. Don't be here tomorrow morning. And they were given that leeway because everybody around knew which white family they had descended from. And some were so white they could pass. But my friend's husband could not pass, although you could see the white influence. And so they left very quickly. Now my friend on several occasions asked me, Why do they hate us so much? What have we ever done to them? And of course I had no answer. So that is what I felt is not discussed very often. There are blacks who can afford to move but do not want to be around white people. They just, at a deep gut level they just don't trust them. My grandmother preferred to stay in the neighborhood where she didn't like people, the way they're keeping up their property or not keeping up their property. She didn't like the signs of drugs coming into the neighborhood, but she'd rather stay there than be surrounded by white people. Okay, I'm now returning to Rothstein's list of desegregation examples. Next, well, I should read something to proceed that. Rothstein says of his examples, all of these have some truth, but they remain a small part of the truth. Submerged by a far more important truth. And you are beginning to read the far more important truths. Next, this theme is emphasized over and over by Rothstein and many other social scientists. And by the end of the program we'll be examining a good example of this. Next, I just want to look one moment at purposeful imposition. Rothstein will criticize not only what our government did purposefully, but what they did not do. Like those examples I read you of LA, the violence there. That was an example of what the government did not do and should have done. And Rothstein has so many examples of that. How many have heard of Levittown? Yes, that was the model community at one point in our history. And when the first black family moved in there, it was well over a month before the police started doing their job to stop preventing bricks being hurled through windows, etc. So our model town became a nightmare for the people who moved in. They had the education and they had the money. But in most of these cases it's not the education or money that gets the crowds out. It's the color of the skin. I can remember as a child, Ralph Bunch. How many remember Ralph Bunch? Yes, Nobel Prize winner, international peacemaker. Just highly decorated for his achievements working on societies. I can remember, I think this was in D.C. but my memory, this goes way back to my childhood. He moved in a neighborhood, crosses were burned, crowds gathered, and it was then I realized it wasn't a matter of class. Because he outclassed probably everybody in that neighborhood or most people. He would outclass most people in most neighborhoods in terms of achievement. It wasn't education. It wasn't achievement in the society. It was because of his color. And he was less brown than I was. And as a child I understood then what racism is about. And let me see where we are right now. Click. Now this author Rothstein is very passionate about law, about the Constitution, and about the jury. And he's next. And because he feels strongly about this, we will examine the amendments he leans on most heavily. He says up here our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, but I would add, and the Reconstruction Amendments, and maybe especially the Reconstruction Amendments. I'm reading Rothstein now. The Fifth Amendment written by our founding fathers prohibits the federal government from treating citizens unfairly next. Now the Fifth Amendment, if you confront it directly, is a long paragraph. And it's usually taught in five sections. What we have done here, we have taken the beginning of the Fifth Amendment and combined it with the last section. And that is the section that quite obviously relates to issues of property. And we are here experienced enough to know that it also relates to issues of race. The due process clause here, where else do we run into the due plot process? Here I'm going to call it a phrase. Where else? Due process here refers to the federal government. We're going to find out that one of the Reconstruction Amendments, the 14th, has due process, but it is explicitly defined for the states. Often though with cases, these are conjoined like twins at the hip back to Rothstein. The Thirteenth Amendment adopted immediately after the Civil War prohibits slavery or in general it prohibits treating African Americans as second class citizens next. And the Thirteenth Amendment has two sections. Next, we will soon see how important this second section is. But before I forget, I think the amendments that Rothstein refers to are pretty clear and direct. You know, we quibble over the Second Amendment, but there's not that much, at least on the face of it, to quibble about the amendments Rothstein is concerned with. Rothstein again. The Fourteenth Amendment also adopted after the Civil War prohibits states or their local governments from treating people either unfairly or unequally next. The Fourteenth Amendment is a long one. Next, next, the fifth and last section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, empowering Congress to write whatever legislation they deem necessary to enact the provisions of the amendment. Now we're going to click quickly through the Fifteenth which next, next. The Fifteenth is important and it is important especially during a voting year like this and it does relate to segregated neighborhoods because when you have segregated neighborhoods, it makes gerrymandering easier. Now again, we're looking at Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation and it's okay if we dwell on this a minute. Rothstein says we typically think of the Thirteenth Amendment as only abolishing slavery. Section one of the Thirteenth Amendment certainly does so and section two does so even more and section two is like this section two we see here with the Fifteenth Amendment giving Congress the right to do the appropriate legislation. The second section empowers Congress to enforce section one next. Now it's important to note that as early as 1866 the USA had a civil rights act banning racial discrimination in housing. We're still fighting it aren't we? Back in 1866. So you've read what's up there and now I'm going to let out a big but next, next. White rage. Okay, I have it but I haven't read it. I hope to. Badge of slavery. Anybody else want to comment on that? To me, badge of slavery was what Oprah was manifesting when she tried to get into that shop to buy the purse. Badge of slavery is what I'm manifesting as I stand up here. But let me go into further examples. By the way, I have found the senior center extremely supportive, extremely helpful. In fact, I think it's one of Davis's jewels. I learned to use a computer here. I learned about riding wheels and truss here, etc. But whereas I have found the staff wonderful. This is a public facility and I've had some very interesting experiences here and I want to make sure it doesn't reflect either on the staff or the facility. This is a public space. I want to demonstrate badge of slavery. On two different occasions, I walked down the far north hallway heading westward to the area where the receptionist is. I sat down and the person I sat down, it's when they had those winged back chairs that I liked so well they were so supportive. The person I sat down next to slowly looked up and saw me and jumped out of her seat like that to go sit elsewhere. Now that's an example for you of the badge of slavery. This happened twice in the early 2000s. Nothing has happened say in the past 10 years. Another time I was coming down that same hallway heading toward the receptionist and just as I turned to be in full view of anyone standing in the area. A lady that was part of a crowd, a group of four, was facing me. And let me just say now, the two ladies who jumped out of their chairs and a huff and took seats elsewhere were definitely in their 80s. But this lady I'm focusing on now was more like in her early 60s. And soon as she saw me, she said to her friends, loud enough for me to hear because it was for me. I guess we can't say nigger anymore. Yes. The incidents I mentioned happened in the early 2000s. As I said, I don't recall anything out of order in the past 10 years or so. And so I hope we're clear on that. I think I'm going to say, no, we are where I want us to be. Again, Rothstein as well as many other social scientists stress the enduring effects of de-jury segregation. And the latter portion of this presentation will detail one current day manifestation of de-jury segregation. I have circled here by failing to recognize. I want to say Rothstein is asking us to be real, to be honest. And he feels and I feel those are essential steps to making a change. And I made a note here that says when I first entered school and was taught the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States. And it ends with liberty and justice for all. By the time I was five, I knew that was a crock. The United States was having lynchings. How could that be with liberty and justice for all? And as a child, I thought, why are they lying? As I grew older, I thought it would be much better, a much more solid hold on reality to simply say striving for liberty and justice for all, which is a noble thing to do. And I mentioned this because some people have really swallowed this and they're not dealing with the real world today. I can remember speaking here a few years back and there was a lady I spoke to afterwards. She had read Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow. And after a few pages she put it down and discussed because it couldn't possibly be true. That's sad. It's really helpful to get a grasp on reality. You may not be able to change anything, but at least you're mentally healthier. Okay, click. This is Rothstein again. Again, I want to repeat, he's extremely passionate about this position. Click next. Does anybody want to comment on Rothstein's position? I think we have made it abundantly clear. Okay. Not yet. And it's still a relatively new book. But I think in the next five years we're going to hear more about Rothstein's position. Right now I just want to hit on a few things to demonstrate what Rothstein uses to buttress his argument, what he uses to show what the government should have done or didn't do. And if the government had declined to build racially separate public housing in cities where segregation hadn't previously taken root and instead had scattered integrated developments throughout the community, those cities might have developed in a less racially toxic fashion with fewer desperate ghettos and more diverse suburbs. If the federal government had not urged suburbs to adopt exclusionary zoning laws, white flight would have been minimized because there would have been fewer racially exclusive suburbs to which frightened homeowners could flee. If the government had told developers that they could have FHA guarantees, federal housing administration that was back in the 30s, FHA is different today. I'll start that over. If the government had told developers that they could have FHA guarantees only if the homes they built were open to all, if only they had integrated working class suburbs. Excuse me, I got off here. If the government had told developers that they could have FHA guarantees only if the homes they built were open to all, integrated working class suburbs would likely have matured with both African-Americans and whites sharing the benefits. If state courts had not blessed private discrimination by ordering the eviction of African-American homeowners in neighborhoods where association rules and restrictive covenants barred their residents, middle-class African-Americans would have been able gradually to integrate previously white communities as they developed the financial means to do so. And here's the last one I'll read. If churches, universities, and hospitals had faced loss of tax-exempt status for their promotion of restrictive covenants, they most likely would have refrained from such activity. Now, the book is just loaded with such examples. He approaches it with a broad net. But I'm looking at the time, so I'm going to ask you to go to next. That's a happy face for us. I was going to have another group activity, but we're going to skip that. So next. Ah, it didn't come in there. Well, it's good. We're looking at the main reason that I decided to do a PowerPoint presentation. This is an example of red lining. And let me give you a little history here. Under FDR's New Deal, there was a great effort, and this is noble and very impressive, to make home ownership more within reach of the masses. So programs were created to lower the down payment to where most people, most working class people could afford it. And to help lower it, the government tried to enlist the aid of private financial groups. And to help entice them through its 1935 City Survey Program, the Homeowners Loan Corporation, and that was the big group that was formed under FDR, although there were others. HOLC gathered data about neighborhoods from approximately 239 cities across the United States and compiled the results in a rating system that ranged from the letter A grade to the letter D grade. Now communities with A ratings represented the best investments for homeowners and banks alike. And they were colored green. Now you may not be able to see the green from where you are that well, because it bleeds into blue quite a bit. And we'll talk more about it. Letter B neighborhoods were colored blue and considered still desirable. So we've gone from best to still desirable. Letter C used the color yellow and that marked neighborhoods in decline. And D were considered hazardous areas. What color did D get? Anybody want to raise their hand and venture forth? What color did D has it? Yes, red. And that's where we got the term red lining. And this allowed homeowners, but more importantly, lenders of money to decide where they were going to place their money. You just had a quick scope of an entire city. Detroit. We're going to see some, in fact, click. This is Atlanta, Georgia. Click. This is where I come from, the Oakland Berkeley area. And I can't see the streets well enough to say where my grandmother's house was. But I can say I think that kind of clear white area up near the top but surrounded by yellow, there are several areas like that. I think that's University of California property. My guess is that we're dealing with West Oakland here. And somewhere around here we're dealing with Berkeley. South Berkeley and West Berkeley. But as I said, it was fun when I came across that to see the red lined areas. Let me continue here. The ratings given by the government agency purported to use objective criteria, but racism did sneak in. H-O-L-C, Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Home Agency valued homogeneity over heterogeneity. So there were mixed neighborhoods that represented the population fairly well, but they didn't get very high ratings. And it appears that the government agencies really look very strongly at ethnicity and race. Those communities depicted in red usually contained minorities. African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and sometimes newly arrived immigrant groups like Slavs, Jews, and Italians. Reminding us that so many groups when they first came here encountered discriminatory treatment. But most of those groups I've mentioned could gradually work themselves into whiteness. They learned the language, they got different haircuts, wore different clothes, and gradually they became white. Whiteness is more than just skin color, although it's dominantly the thing. And I was amazed to discover that at one point in the Los Angeles area, African Americans and Japanese were the people that they were most discriminatory about. But I think the Japanese have worked themselves generally. I don't want to say everybody, but generally out of that category of hazardous. And the impact of redlining cannot be overstated. Redline communities struggled to receive federally backed home loans. That's what you were talking about, Susan. They struggled to get, well, this made property ownership much more difficult for them as a result. Moreover, it made getting loans for home improvements, maintenance, upkeep and renovation, though not impossible, very likely. Not being able to get your hands on that loaned cash, especially when the government worked with private lenders to lower things, to put them within reach. And as you told us about Susan, the GI Bill, my family was very crushed that they could not use the GI Bill. And I have not really recovered from the disappointment my mother felt. So neighborhoods that weren't allowed borrowed money fell into a vicious cycle of decline. The inability to access capital led to disrepair. And the physical decline of a community's housing stock, which in turn reinforced the redline designation. That redlining became equated with race and class, led to a kind of naturalization of segregation. And I'm going to stop now because I want to start winding up. I told you this morning I turned on the radio and heard Amy Goodman talking about a study that was released just this month. There's a news organization in the Bay Area called Reveal. It's investigative and they spent most part of 2016 and most of 2017 making a study of big 61 metro areas. And they found, and by the way, their study has been endorsed by people who know the quality of studies, data, research and assessment. They've been rated very high. They have discovered that modern day redlining persists in 61 metro areas, even when you control for applicants having similar or the same incomes. Even when you control for applicants asking for the same loan amount. Even when you control for applicants trying to move into the same or similar neighborhoods. The analysis showed black applicants were turned away at significantly higher rates than whites in 48 cities, Latinos in 25, Asians in 9 and Native Americans in 3. In Washington DC, the nation's capital, Reveal found all four groups were significantly more likely to be denied a home loan than whites. So you see there is a spillover of this racism. Blacks get it the hardest in this particular area, but it does affect other people. And it gives you a better understanding of our anti-immigrant position, or I should say the position of some people. Lending patterns in Philadelphia today resemble redlining maps drawn across the country by government officials in the 1930s. And that was when lending discrimination was legal. This practice of redlining has been outlawed for 50 years now. And for the last 40 years, banks have a legal obligation under a law called Community Reinvestment Act to go out and solicit clients, borrowers, depositors from all segments of their societies. Well, they found that overwhelmingly these banks were located in white neighborhoods, overwhelmingly. And the money given to the Community Reinvestment Act, which was meant to reinvest in low-income communities, is being given to whites for gentrification. We've all been aware of certain areas if we travel being more gentrified. Well, they're being more gentrified because the banks, instead of doing what the law says they should be doing, are just following old established patterns. I am going to give you an example that carries a lot of weight. There is a young woman named Rachelle. I'll just use her first name. Rachelle was raised by a public school teacher mom, and Rachelle was sent to private schools and all her education went to college. She's prepared to live the middle-class life. She's 30, she was 33, she may be 33 now because all this began in 2016, I'm not sure, but you get the general range of her age. She was rejected twice by lenders, and this is in Philadelphia. When she tried to buy a brick-row house, and from the way they describe it, I'm assuming it's in a dominantly minority neighborhood, and she tried to borrow from a group. Well, Reveal found that the group she tried to borrow from were 2.7 times as likely to deny a conventional mortgage to a black-qualified person as to a white. And when Rachelle applied for a loan in April 2016, she thought she was an ideal candidate. She holds a degree from Northwestern University, had good credit, and estimates she was making approximately 60,000 a year while teaching computer programming as a contractor for Rutgers University. Still, her initial application was denied, and I won't name the bank and confuse you. An independent broker, well, the bank that denied her was independent, and it made nearly 90% of its loans to whites in 2015 and 2016. I'm sorry, the broker wrote to Rachelle in an email. She said that Rachelle's contract income wasn't consistent enough. So the next thing Rachelle did was get a full-time job at the University of Pennsylvania, managing a million-dollar grant. But still, that wasn't enough. When she tried again a year later with another bank, the process dragged on for months. Eventually, they stopped responding to her phone calls, and then she got the bright idea. Let me try this. She has a partner, and the partner's name is Hanako France. Hanako France is half Japanese and half white. Hanako, at this period, was between things she really wanted to do. So she was working part-time at a grocery store, and at the point when she signed on to the request to borrow money, her most recent pay stub showed she was making $144.65 every two weeks, so essentially $72 a week. And once she signed on and called up, she got immediate response. Within a few weeks, they had their home loan. I find that just deplorable. But I couldn't get a better example to illustrate that redlining is still going on. And our current federal government has even lowered the requirements on the lenders who are supposed to be under the Community Reinvestment Act. The law already was weak. They weren't being properly monitored. And I want to say this, getting back to what Susan told us about home ownership and building wealth. The disproportionate denials and limited anti-discrimination enforcement help explain why the home ownership gap between whites and African Americans, which had been shrinking since the 1970s, why that gap has exploded since the housing bust. And then let me say this, the fact that minorities were targeted for the subprime loans is another excellent example of how the past really has not passed, how it's still with us. It was okay to wipe those people out and some of those people should have qualified for prime loans. But they were being talked into, loans they shouldn't have been. But again, the banks weren't doing what they were supposed to do, what the law tells them. This gap, oh, the gap now between white ownership and black ownership is wider than it was during the Jim Crow era. And the Jim Crow era spans from the 19th century somewhere into the 1960s. This gap has far-reaching consequences. In the United States, wealth and financial stability are inextricably linked to housing opportunity and home ownership. For a typical family, the largest share of their wealth emanates from home ownership and home equity. And Susan gave us an excellent example of the GI Bill, which my family could not get. The latest figures from the Census Bureau, U.S. Census Bureau, show that the median net worth for an African American family is $9,000 compared with $132,000 for a white family. Latino families weigh in at $12,000. One person said in Pennsylvania, an activist in fair housing, it's like a glass ceiling. Okay, we allow you to go this far, but you're not going to go any further. Okay, let's click. Next, and who says computers are a problem? Well, I'm going to start talking. I'm returning to Rothstein at this point because you've just got the latest update, and you're likely to hear more about this modern-day redlining. In his bibliography, Rothstein duly commends his sources. He thanks them for the work they've done and what they have contributed to his work. But he sets aside a special paragraph that begins. I also recommend Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow, mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. And there's my picture for that, that little boy again. Does anybody know where I got that picture? Time magazine in the past six weeks had him on their cover and also inside, and I just love the little picture. But the lines by his picture say, residential segregation underpins our racial problems today. And I think he's right. And the mass incarceration of young black men, often without sufficient cause, is the most serious. And I have more pictures here. Integrating the nation residentially is a long-term project. But the criminal justice systems targeting of young men living in black neighborhoods is an urgent crisis that we can, if we have the will, address quickly. Oops, I forgot. I'm tied to a string. I'm not supposed to be walking. Well, the string tethered me in quickly enough. I hope somebody recognizes the pictures I'm showing now. Oh, that's okay. I have to have the book because I'm going to continue. Well, let me show that side of the room and I'll bring it right back. Okay. Yeah, we did quite a bit of research to get that. And it had been the big screen I would have asked, do you recognize? Thank you. A frozen laptop. Well, it happens to the best of us. I feel so like I have a tail here. But I'm still winding up because Rothstein finally says, absorbing the analysis of Michelle Alexander's, the new Jim Crow, can be a step in the right direction. He strongly recommends that. And I might insert a recommendation here also. Ta-Nehisi Coates, now classic essay on the case for reparations, goes into a lot of personal detail about what happened in Chicago. And you can read that online. Okay, I'm ending the program with a quote. And I'm going to ask you to guess who made this quote. Here it is. Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes and many of its cures are the same. There are differences, deep corrosive, obstinate differences, radiating painful roots into the community and into the family and the nature of the individual. These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. Who can guess who made that statement? It was a famous person. And it was not in this century, it was in the last century. Can anybody tell me the race of the person? I'll tell you the gender was male. And what makes this even more moving? It's a white male born in Texas, raised in Texas, President Lyndon Baines Johnson. His insights could not have been better written by Ta-Nehisi Coates or James Baldwin. I think that's a hopeful note to end on. And thank you for coming. And thank you for the applause. And let's thank the senior center for all the work they've done too. Let's give them a round of applause.