Did you take a class in critical race theory?

[Harry Bosch]

Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find



https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html

Residential loans are extremely regulated through fair lending, reg b and etc. As a result, they are very formula driven. Banks have to have set criteria to determine these loans. For example: a borrower may need 700 beacon score, 40% D:I; 10% down to qualify for a loan. If they are denied a loan, it's not because of their race, it's due to them not achieving the criteria. If blacks were systematically denied loans despite exceeding these ratios, they could sue that bank out of existence. There is more lender discretion in commercial loans by the way...

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

 

[Politesse]

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

Well, that's fine. You're now working on solving the actual problem, the structural issues that underlie these exchanges, even if (in my opinion) you're vastly oversimplifying the process of applying for a loan. CRT does not actually imply any specific solution to the questions it poses; you don't have to censor all discussion of race in order to work toward positivistically increasing Black borrowers' likelihood of attaining fair rates. I think the data or legal case history do not support the notion that the criteria you pose are the only controlling factors in getting a loan, though.'

Thank you for bringing this up! It's actually a pretty classic case study when it comes to CRT, and may help readers understand a little better why CRT began under the auspices of the legal profession but slowly caught on in the other social sciences as the implications of widespread structural discrimination became clearer and the empirical evidence thereof began to mount.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

Well, that's fine. You're now working on solving the actual problem, the structural issues that underlie these exchanges, even if (in my opinion) you're vastly oversimplifying the process of applying for a loan. CRT does not actually imply any specific solution to the questions it poses; you don't have to censor all discussion of race in order to work toward positivistically increasing Black borrowers' likelihood of attaining fair rates. I think the data or legal case history do not support the notion that the criteria you pose are the only controlling factors in getting a loan, though.'

Thank you for bringing this up! It's actually a pretty classic case study when it comes to CRT, and may help readers understand a little better why CRT began under the auspices of the legal profession but slowly caught on in the other social sciences as the implications of widespread structural discrimination became clearer and the empirical evidence thereof began to mount.

Well, I was a commercial lender for 20 years. I was not a residential lender. And they really are different. But I know banking. Cash flow (D:I); amount down (skin in the game); and beacon score (credit history) is 95% of the criteria to get a residential loan. There's no doubt that people in certain tribes are treated differently by people and institutions. My only issue is that we should recognize that times are getting better. And secondly, we should make sure that fixing the "system" at the institutional level dosn't have unintended negative consequences. One example of this would be lower the criteria for a person in a certain "tribe"; they buy a house that they can't afford, go into default, lose their equity, time, and credit score. In this case, the laxed criteria would hurt the "minority".

 

[Copernicus]

Harry's point is that mortgages depend more on "objective criteria" such as credit scores than race, but I do think Politesse is right about how CRT works. The point is that one's general credit rating has to reach a threshold that is much harder for people in certain racial classes. So the system discriminates, not necessarily the actual lender. And that is why Poli's posts are so relevant to this discussion. CRT is portrayed by Republicans and conservatives as an attempt to actually blame racism on white people. That is what drives the hysterical reaction to CRT, which is mischaracterized as having something to do with K-12 education. The fact is that the real CRT is about as far away from its popular reputation as one can get. It has nothing to do with making white people the problem. The demonization of CRT is all about rebranding it. Since almost nobody outside of academia is familiar with the real theory, the rebranding effort is largely successful. Even those demonizing it don't realize how different the real theory is from how they themselves portray it. It is not really about racists in the system. It is about the system itself being racist in a very impersonal way--what some people might term "objective".

 

[Harry Bosch]

Harry's point is that mortgages depend more on "objective criteria" such as credit scores than race, but I do think Politesse is right about how CRT works. The point is that one's general credit rating has to reach a threshold that is much harder for people in certain racial classes. So the system discriminates, not necessarily the actual lender. And that is why Poli's posts are so relevant to this discussion. CRT is portrayed by Republicans and conservatives as an attempt to actually blame racism on white people. That is what drives the hysterical reaction to CRT, which is mischaracterized as having something to do with K-12 education. The fact is that the real CRT is about as far away from its popular reputation as one can get. It has nothing to do with making white people the problem. The demonization of CRT is all about rebranding it. Since almost nobody outside of academia is familiar with the real theory, the rebranding effort is largely successful. Even those demonizing it don't realize how different the real theory is from how they themselves portray it.

I don't disagree. However, there is a very large issue here. When does the average republican (or people to the right) understand nuance? They have an incredible difficult time understanding the difference between today's definition of socialism and the traditional definition of socialism. CRT is more complicated and nuanced than socialism! And this group of folks represents a very large, very motivated group of the electorate. I'm sorry to say that but the CRT issue will be a very large loser for the left over time.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Harry's point is that mortgages depend more on "objective criteria" such as credit scores than race, but I do think Politesse is right about how CRT works. The point is that one's general credit rating has to reach a threshold that is much harder for people in certain racial classes. So the system discriminates, not necessary the actual lender. And that is why Poli's posts are so relevant to this discussion. CRT is portrayed by Republicans and conservatives as an attempt to actually blame racism on white people. That is what drives the hysterical reaction to CRT, which is mischaracterized as having something to do with K-12 education. The fact is that the real CRT is about as far away from its popular reputation as one can get. It has nothing to do with making white people the problem. The demonization of CRT is all about rebranding it. Since almost nobody outside of academia is familiar with the real theory, the rebranding effort is largely successful. Even those demonizing it don't realize how different the real theory is from how they themselves portray it.

I agree with everything you have said, but wonder about that last sentence. There are certainly people at the top orchestrating this propaganda campaign. It isn't clear to me what exactly they know or don't know. The rabble, i.e. the people being targeted by the propaganda, who also demonize CRT, okay, I agree don't know much about it except what they've been told to know which is mostly hyperbole and fantasy. One thing I've come to realize most recently is that the term "systemic racism" has been trendy lately. It's true. It's been in media and I believe it's been talked about in education by staff to each other. Conservatives whose primary principle is one of trying to retain power by the elite see this as a danger and so they've orchestrated an offense against it. They can't come out and say, that anti-racist stuff is terrible because they do not want to be anti-anti-racist or anti-anti-systemic-racist. Instead, they've done some kind of informal marketing research to establish what kind of concept they need to attack and make the opponent and CRT is it. So, the Heritage Foundation's downloadable toolkit for parents is labeled "Reject Critical Race Theory." Someone somewhen had to research CRT during the process of making this propaganda to repackage features of CRT in hyperbolic and misleading ways. I think?

 

[Gun Nut]

Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find

A recent analysis of nearly 7 million 30-year mortgages by University of California at Berkeley researchers found that black and Latino applicants were charged higher interest — an average of nearly 0.08% — and heavier refinance fees when compared with white borrowers. That was in face-to-face transactions. When applying online or through an app, minorities still ended up paying more, though terms were slightly better than when borrowing in person.

The upshot: Long-standing discrimination faced by people of color in getting a home loan can be reproduced in software-based lending, technology that advocates say is supposed to prevent bias.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html

For refinances specifically, Black borrowers are denied mortgage refinance loans, on average, 30.22% of the time, far higher than the overall denial rate of 17.07%, according to an analysis of the HMDA data by LendingTree, an online mortgage marketplace.

Part of that high denial rate may be because minority consumers overall have lower incomes and lower credit scores than White consumers. They also tend to live in more disadvantaged neighborhoods with lower home values. None of that was the case with Akridge, whose townhome is in a brand new development in a quiet suburb just outside Washington, D.C.

Two more lenders called Akridge, and he decided not to disclose his race. Both offered him competitive market rates on a refinance. One even offered to beat the other.

So you agree it is idiotic (for millenials who are still living at home with their parents that sent them to these elite schools) to tell other people that if they seek to purchase a home (Something they are less motivated than other generations to do) then those that need to get a mortgage (because they don't have a million dollar trust fund) are racists. they are white supremacists for participating in the banking system.

 

[Gun Nut]

I mean we are stuck with blacks here.

Maybe there's a final solution you could enact.

For the Jews, it was Israel.
For the blacks, it was Liberia.

We didn't kick either of those groups out.

 

[bilby]

Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find



https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html

So you agree it is idiotic (for millenials who are still living at home with their parents that sent them to these elite schools) to tell other people that if they seek to purchase a home (Something they are less motivated than other generations to do) then those that need to get a mortgage (because they don't have a million dollar trust fund) are racists. they are white supremacists for participating in the banking system.

So you agree that it is idiotic to breed unicorns?

Or is it just something that isn't happening, so the question of whether it is idiotic doesn't apply?

This is just more #ConservativesGettingMadAtThingsTheyMadeUp

 

[Gun Nut]

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

Who walks into a bank to get a loan? Neanderthals. You submit your application online and are approved or not based on your credit report. No demographics are available to the bank prior to closing. If black people happen to be victims of economic inequity then they will, necessarily, fall on the bottom of the pile of people approved for loans. This is due to their economic status, not their skin color. How their skin color affects their economic status PRIOR to being rejected due to their economic status is a very fair question.

 

[Gun Nut]

Aside from the part that either you or they invented ("don't get a mortgage" would not solve the problem, and CRT specialists aren't big fans of meaningless virtue signaling as a general rule) this is a fact, easily researched. Banks do, in fact, preferentially award mortgages and other associated loans to whites, and the reasons for that touch on the core ideas of CRT, that institutional racism survives less because of the actions of racist individuals than because the system was set up in such a way as to preserve class biases.

Disparity in home lending costs minorities millions, researchers find



https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html

So you agree it is idiotic (for millenials who are still living at home with their parents that sent them to these elite schools) to tell other people that if they seek to purchase a home (Something they are less motivated than other generations to do) then those that need to get a mortgage (because they don't have a million dollar trust fund) are racists. they are white supremacists for participating in the banking system.

So you agree that it is idiotic to breed unicorns?

Or is it just something that isn't happening, so the question of whether it is idiotic doesn't apply?

This is just more #ConservativesGettingMadAtThingsTheyMadeUp

As I said, I personally know 3 "unicorns". They are cousins that all attend elite schools (Brown, for one). I tell you, this very topic has harmed my relationship with them... Like they think I am a knuckle dragging MAGA because I am not ashamed of being born white and I AM the problem because I distinguish between advantage and privilege.

Yes, they certainly exist... in spades.

 

[Gospel]

I mean we are stuck with blacks here.

Maybe there's a final solution you could enact.

For the Jews, it was Israel.
For the blacks, it was Liberia.

We didn't kick either of those groups out.

Liberia? Then why hasn't the US been sending billions a year there instead of Israel?

 

[Gun Nut]

For the Jews, it was Israel.
For the blacks, it was Liberia.

We didn't kick either of those groups out.

Liberia? Then why hasn't the US been sending billions a year there instead of Israel?

Lack of interest... by all parties.

 

[Gun Nut]

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

Who walks into a bank to get a loan? Neanderthals. You submit your application online and are approved or not based on your credit report. No demographics are available to the bank prior to closing. If black people happen to be victims of economic inequity then they will, necessarily, fall on the bottom of the pile of people approved for loans. This is due to their economic status, not their skin color. How their skin color affects their economic status PRIOR to being rejected due to their economic status is a very fair question.

OK, I just caught up on more posts and I am quoting myself because what I think I just did there was engage in CRT without realizing it. Was I CRTing just there?
If so, then good, my cousins are idiots all on thier own.
If not, then bad, my cousins are still idiots and I still don't get it.

 

[Gospel]

Who walks into a bank to get a loan? Neanderthals. You submit your application online and are approved or not based on your credit report. No demographics are available to the bank prior to closing. If black people happen to be victims of economic inequity then they will, necessarily, fall on the bottom of the pile of people approved for loans. This is due to their economic status, not their skin color. How their skin color affects their economic status PRIOR to being rejected due to their economic status is a very fair question.

OK, I just caught up on more posts and I am quoting myself because what I think I just did there was engage in CRT without realizing it. Was I CRTing just there?
If so, then good, my cousins are idiots all on thier own.
If not, then bad, my cousins are still idiots and I still don't get it.

Likely yes. Apparently, CRT (and I'm not talking about tubes archeologists may find alongside dinosaurs' bones) is an academic movement involve in civil rights meant to examine the law as it intersects with issues of race. I used Wikipedia so I owe them a donation now.

 

[Politesse]

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

Who walks into a bank to get a loan? Neanderthals. You submit your application online and are approved or not based on your credit report. No demographics are available to the bank prior to closing. If black people happen to be victims of economic inequity then they will, necessarily, fall on the bottom of the pile of people approved for loans. This is due to their economic status, not their skin color. How their skin color affects their economic status PRIOR to being rejected due to their economic status is a very fair question.

Which is how seemingly "objective" assessments can become instruments of targeted oppression, even if they aren't as such meant to be... and that might be a little too generous, since the banking institution was not, to start with, intended to create or ensure racial equity.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Speaking of the downloadable toolkit for parents put out by the Heritage Foundation labeled "Reject Critical Race Theory," ...

I only downloaded it to examine their propaganda's content, but now they are emailing me, prompting me into "grassroots" action from the top-down direction:

[My Name is Here],

Thanks for downloading our critical race theory (CRT) ebook! Within the ebook, you will learn about what you can do to stop critical race theory.

One of the best ways to expose what is happening in schools with CRT is by submitting a FOIA request. Every state has different laws and procedures when it comes to submitting FOIA requests, so we have compiled links for each state to make it easier for you.

Head over to the ebook today to learn more about FOIA requests, see a sample of what to write, and to submit one. This will give you access to the debate and decision making process of your elected officials to ensure they are not pushing critical race theory into your schools.

Thank you!

Janae Stracke
Grassroots Director
Heritage Action​

 

[Gospel]

View attachment 34173

Can you take a moment and imagine what it was like for a black child going through their history lesson about slavery? Being told you're a bad person, your parents are bad people & grandparents are bad people is significantly different than being shown how people got treated by others who thought they were bad people and those people who got treated badly looked just like you.

Edit: And then see it in the eyes of your neighbors as you go about your life every day. When was the last time you got stopped because you fit the description? For me, it was just last week.

Edit: I didn't say this to invalidate your concerns. I'm saying this to show that we're living with the effects of slavery too, on the other side. You'll survive as we have.

 

[Ford]

So you agree that it is idiotic to breed unicorns?

Or is it just something that isn't happening, so the question of whether it is idiotic doesn't apply?

This is just more #ConservativesGettingMadAtThingsTheyMadeUp

Well that's par for the course, isn't it? At the moment (according to the right wing) two of the most pressing issues in our country - nay, threats to our very existence - are trans athletes in school sports, and teaching kids that America has even a little racism in it's history.

Not the pandemic. Not our crumbling infrastructure. Not skyrocketing wealth disparity. Not a healthcare system that bankrupts people in exchange for treatment. Not a massive underclass of undocumented workers brought here by businesses unwilling to pay even poverty wages to citizens. Not climate change.

Nope, their big "OMG we need to do something about this NOW" push is to stop an almost non-existent number of trans kids in sports from being able to compete as the gender they identify as, and an academic point of view which is both correct, and not even remotely being taught widely. Along with their push to destroy our electoral system and pretend Trump is still President, these are their most pressing concerns.

And yes, I know that what they're really doing this to distract from our actual problems, but you have to meet them where they are...which is in fantasy land.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You're almost there.

The whole point of CRT discourse is that the system itself, not just the individual feelings of gatekeepers like lending agents, results in systemic discrimination against Blacks. Fixing overt racism would be good, but it's not enough if the goal to create genuine racial equity. If the end result is that Blacks are unfairly discriminated against in the housing market, that's the case even if the reasons for it are couched in other terms. Saying "that's just the way our system is set up" is not, from the perspective of someone who wants to end unfair and discriminatory practices, a sufficient answer to the problem. If a person can vastly change the outcome of a loan application simply by concealing their race, there's a big problem here, even if a computer algorithm presumably with no personal feelings at all is to blame.

Well, as a non-white person, I'm more comfortable with a loan program that evaluates my application based on objective ratios that I either achieve or don't achieve. At least then I have a fair shot and I could improve my ratios over time. But I wouldn't like it if the criteria is tweaked based on my "race" (hate that term). If people of my tribe are falling behind (like tribe better than race!); then I'd prefer to help people of my tribe better attain these ratios. Finally, the ratios were determined based on how to predict default rates. IOW, if the criteria is D:I of 40%; and someone has a D:I of 45%; they aren't "passing". Their cash flow is less, and they have a higher chance of loan default. The borrower loses for more if they are put into a loan that they can't repay.

Who walks into a bank to get a loan? Neanderthals. You submit your application online and are approved or not based on your credit report. No demographics are available to the bank prior to closing. If black people happen to be victims of economic inequity then they will, necessarily, fall on the bottom of the pile of people approved for loans. This is due to their economic status, not their skin color. How their skin color affects their economic status PRIOR to being rejected due to their economic status is a very fair question.

Well, I'm a commercial client, private business owner. I'm retired banker! But I have a banker. So, I refyed my home loan through my bank at the branch.