Undercover Investigation Reveals Evidence Of Unequal Treatment By Real Estate Agents

[Jolly_Penguin]

ITT:

Identical applicants of different perceived race treated differently, with 'black' applicants being segregated.

Racists: ITs nOt RaCIst BeCAuSE ThE agENtS JusT AsSumED thAT The aPPlICAntS WaNtEd tO Be SegreGAtED sO ThE ApPlIcANTs ArE ThE ReaL RAcISts

Seriously? This is textbook racial profiling. AKA racism. It's racist to assume someone wants to be racially segregated.

Yes. Exactly. This is racist and inexcusable. Presuming people have particular interests or are at a particular financial level based on nothing but race is completely unfair. This is the use of a race proxy and that is pointless when actual income and actual interests could be asked about and that information used directly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is your reason for obscuring the apparent racial profiling?

I obscured nothing; I was pointing out the bias in Jarhyn's characterisation.

In general, I don't think people should discriminate based on race. But I also think people have prejudices, from malicious to benign, that will always affect their behavior. We should encourage systems where people's prejudices about race can't have much influence.

For example, one of the agents in the study said they needed a pre-approval letter in one case, but not in the other. A policy around when pre-approval letters are required should be implemented, and exceptions to the policy should be rare but justifiable.

So everyone jumps through hoops that aren't realistically needed in most cases? If you've bought one house you know what's needed for the next one. Also, it's quite possible for a realtor to ask the income questions. (They won't be able to pull a credit report but if someone knows they have good credit that's not that vital.) We've ended up buying new houses both times, we ended up going with the lender the builder preferred--something we certainly didn't know when our search started.

Note, also, that in a highly competitive market whether you are prequalified or not will make a difference on how likely an offer is to be accepted.

 

[Metaphor]

Prejudice ALWAYS matters because opportunity to act on it is a function of time. People will always, eventually, get an opportunity to act on prejudice.

Then I'm afraid you're up shit creek because you will never eliminate prejudice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sure real estate agents are happier knowing their clients are pre-qualified, but the client isn't under any obligation to be pre-qualified before asking an agent to show them a property. If the agent only wants to deal with pre-qualified buyers, fine, but any assumption that blacks won't be pre-qualified is racist to its core.

That's not what the article said. The article said that blacks were more likely to be refused without a prequalification letter. It said nothing about how many were prequalified.

We're not talking about people who appeared to be unable to afford to buy a house. We're talking about people who appeared to be able to afford houses in the same price range but some weren't shown houses others were, apparently because of their race.

You are assuming they appeared able to buy a house. What I'm saying is that the supposed matching of applicants doesn't apply to whether they appear able to afford a house.

Their pairing was based on faked actual finances, not upon how the people will appear to the realtor--this aspect of the test was actually totally lacking in controls.

"How people will appear to the realtor"? Do you mean, some will appear to be black and that will affect the realtor's decision on which houses to show them? That is precisely the kind of racism the OP is about.

I'm talking about knowledge of the process. Show up at the agent knowing your credit score, your monthly debt payments and how much you can borrow while meeting current underwriting standards and they're going to care a lot less about the prequalification than if you just show up wanting to buy a house.

And you don't understand about prequalification--it's not based on a specific house and isn't a guarantee the bank will fund a particular mortgage. Rather, it's an evaluation that it appears they will be approved to borrow up to $x. Without that it comes down to the prospect's evaluation of whether they can afford it--and for the financially naive that can be wildly wrong. Thus showing houses to the naive who aren't prequalified is a far bigger risk than showing them to those who know what they're doing.

If you think for one minute that realtors are agents of the Nanny State, and will throw away a chance to make a big sale in order to spare a client the anguish of struggling to pay a mortgage, you're dreaming.

I don't see how this is supposed to be in any way a response to what I wrote. It's not a matter of the realtor trying to protect the buyer, it's that if they don't buy the realtor doesn't get a penny--the realtor is looking out for their own interests!

If you think realtors see blacks as naïve and doubt they can secure a home loan, that's racist, both on your part and theirs. If it's true that black people are less likely to secure home loans, that's indicative of even more racism.

1) What I'm saying is that the researchers failed to control for this. Note that the problem only applies when they don't have a prequalification letter.

2) As for whether black people are equally likely to get a loan--once again you're assuming disparate results means discrimination. What we saw from the supposed redlining stuff is that equally qualified black people are equally likely to get a loan. That says nothing about how many applicants there were.

Blowback how? There are far too many agents out there for the few people who know what happened boycotting a given agent to have any meaningful effect.

You should read what people went through during the 1960s when neighborhoods were being desegregated. Boycotting the agents who facilitated the sale of houses to black families was the least of it.

Just because it mattered in the 60s doesn't mean it's still going to be a factor.

 

[Metaphor]

That is your reason for obscuring the apparent racial profiling?

I obscured nothing; I was pointing out the bias in Jarhyn's characterisation.

In general, I don't think people should discriminate based on race. But I also think people have prejudices, from malicious to benign, that will always affect their behavior. We should encourage systems where people's prejudices about race can't have much influence.

For example, one of the agents in the study said they needed a pre-approval letter in one case, but not in the other. A policy around when pre-approval letters are required should be implemented, and exceptions to the policy should be rare but justifiable.

So everyone jumps through hoops that aren't realistically needed in most cases? If you've bought one house you know what's needed for the next one. Also, it's quite possible for a realtor to ask the income questions. (They won't be able to pull a credit report but if someone knows they have good credit that's not that vital.) We've ended up buying new houses both times, we ended up going with the lender the builder preferred--something we certainly didn't know when our search started.

No, I don't mean unnecessary jumping through hoops. I mean follow your own policies--and if you don't have policies, create them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fuck me but some of the mealy-mouthed apologetics and racism denial going on here is embarrassing to watch.

I know, right? The point is that they treated identical pre-qualified people differently.

That. Is. Racial. Profiling.

Racism.

Reality check: Their #1 issue was people who did not have a prequalification! They didn't mention the ones who were qualified--because there wasn't actual discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

Treating people differently who only differ by race is racism. It's the most fundamental core aspect of the word.

You must be livid at Harvard.

 

[ZiprHead]

Fuck me but some of the mealy-mouthed apologetics and racism denial going on here is embarrassing to watch.

I know, right? The point is that they treated identical pre-qualified people differently.

That. Is. Racial. Profiling.

Racism.

Reality check: Their #1 issue was people who did not have a prequalification! They didn't mention the ones who were qualified--because there wasn't actual discrimination.

Pre Qualifications were included in the testing.

Most commonly in the seven cases, agents refused to provide house listings or home tours to minority testers unless they met financial qualifications that weren’t imposed on white counterparts.

Perhaps you should read the entire article instead of relying on your preconceived notions.

 

[Jarhyn]

Treating people differently who only differ by race is racism. It's the most fundamental core aspect of the word.

You must be livid at Harvard.

If you want to talk about universities, bring it up in The thread about universities. This is a thread about housing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fuck me but some of the mealy-mouthed apologetics and racism denial going on here is embarrassing to watch.

I know, right? The point is that they treated identical pre-qualified people differently.

That. Is. Racial. Profiling.

Racism.

Reality check: Their #1 issue was people who did not have a prequalification! They didn't mention the ones who were qualified--because there wasn't actual discrimination.

And they treated those people differently on the basis of their race, despite equal financial precursors.

That's called RACIAL PROFILING, a function of RACISM.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Some problems here:

1) The biggest issue was whether they were prequalified or not--being more willing to show houses to someone without prequalification if they were white. To a large degree this is a financial judgment call--does this person seem to know enough about the finances. That's not something they will do a good job of controlling for using paired testers.

2) The next thing they are squawking about is realtors steering buyers to neighborhoods generally favored by other homebuyers of their race. Hey, that's their job--find what the customer wants!

This looks like once again having to stretch to find "evidence" of discrimination.

Try reading the article.

How could I have posted that without having read at least part of it? I got tired of it when I saw they didn't have anything solid, it was the usual stretch to claim discrimination with inadequate evidence.

This was in the tenth paragraph:

Two undercover testers – for example, one black and one white – separately solicit an agent’s assistance in buying houses. They present similar financial profiles and request identical terms for houses in the same areas.

The above invalidates both of your points.

Are you sure you read it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Prejudice ALWAYS matters because opportunity to act on it is a function of time. People will always, eventually, get an opportunity to act on prejudice.

Then I'm afraid you're up shit creek because you will never eliminate prejudice.

You can minimise it and yes, even eliminate it through sensible policies, like sanitizing race from the equation and making decisions in a blind manner: having showing itineraries built by people not exposed to the race of the applicants.

Of course, the easiest way is to just revoke the business license of those agents who clearly act on prejudice.

 

[Metaphor]

Prejudice ALWAYS matters because opportunity to act on it is a function of time. People will always, eventually, get an opportunity to act on prejudice.

Then I'm afraid you're up shit creek because you will never eliminate prejudice.

You can minimise it and yes, even eliminate it through sensible policies, like sanitizing race from the equation and making decisions in a blind manner: having showing itineraries built by people not exposed to the race of the applicants.

Of course, the easiest way is to just revoke the business license of those agents who clearly act on prejudice.

You're proposing exactly what I did: if you don't have the infrastructure to express your prejudice, it doesn't matter.

 

[ruby sparks]

You can minimise it and yes, even eliminate it through sensible policies, like sanitizing race from the equation and making decisions in a blind manner: having showing itineraries built by people not exposed to the race of the applicants.

Of course, the easiest way is to just revoke the business license of those agents who clearly act on prejudice.

You're proposing exactly what I did: if you don't have the infrastructure to express your prejudice, it doesn't matter.

Whilst such measures would likely help, I think saying that prejudice doesn't (or wouldn't then) matter is going too far and I don't think Jarhyn was saying that. His previous remark that prejudice always matters because opportunity to act on it is a function of time, was on the money, imo.

But the idea that prejudice, a bit like crime perhaps, is inevitable, and that all that can be done about it is to try to stamp it out or regulate it using various procedures and protocols, is an incomplete perspective, imo. Some prejudice may indeed be inevitable, but the particular amount is not, and the associated problems are generally a matter of degree. And furthermore, efforts to regulate it arguably don't get to the core of why it manifests to the degree that it does in the first place, nor do such efforts do much to treat the underlying causes. In some ways, it's enforcement/regulation as a post hoc sticking plaster.

Herein lies the broad moral justification for also, in addition, doing more to acknowledge, address and indeed try to actively rectify some of the underlying and historical issues and the factors which have in part caused the patterns (and degrees) of inequality and unfairness that manifest in any given society in the present, be they economic, cultural, gender-based, racial, or whatever. Much of this could arguably come under the broad umbrella term 'social justice', which has become an unfairly maligned concept in some quarters, imo.

Personally, I don't think it's easy to get towards more or better social justice (a 'fairer society') without doing at least something, sometimes something broad or structural, to remedy (and possibly offer some redress for) the (often historical) causes, something restorative in other words, though I do accept that it is very tricky to work out how to do that effectively and with due consideration towards fairness for all current members of society, privileged, unprivileged or whatever, and their individual liberties. But I believe the moral case for it is strong, at least in principle, which is why I would advocate for people being more tolerant when it comes to allowing such things to be discussed, proposed and pursued, partly because the vast majority of people stand to benefit in the long run.

I guess those last two paragraphs are very general, and away from the specific OP issue somewhat.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But the idea that prejudice, a bit like crime perhaps, is inevitable, and that all that can be done about it is to try to stamp it out or regulate it using various procedures and protocols, is an incomplete perspective, imo. Some prejudice may indeed be inevitable, but the particular amount is not, and the associated problems are generally a matter of degree. And furthermore, efforts to regulate it arguably don't get to the core of why it manifests to the degree that it does in the first place, nor do such efforts do much to treat the underlying causes. In some ways, it's enforcement/regulation as a post hoc sticking plaster.

Herein lies the broad moral justification for also, in addition, doing more to acknowledge, address and indeed try to actively rectify some of the underlying and historical issues and the factors which have in part caused the patterns (and degrees) of inequality and unfairness that manifest in any given society in the present, be they economic, cultural, gender-based, racial, or whatever. Much of this could arguably come under the broad umbrella term 'social justice', which has become an unfairly maligned concept in some quarters, imo.

Yes. This. Well said. Now, be careful not to push prejudice further with those "social justice" initiatives. If you have any concern over the black-means-poor prejudice that forms the core of the racism of many real estate agents like these ones, shop owners keeping a special eye on black shoppers (presuming they can't afford to buy stuff at their store) and police officers pulling black people over who drive nice cars (presuming they can't have afforded it), then don't rest any of your "social justice" initiatives on using black as a proxy for poor.

 

[Jarhyn]

But the idea that prejudice, a bit like crime perhaps, is inevitable, and that all that can be done about it is to try to stamp it out or regulate it using various procedures and protocols, is an incomplete perspective, imo. Some prejudice may indeed be inevitable, but the particular amount is not, and the associated problems are generally a matter of degree. And furthermore, efforts to regulate it arguably don't get to the core of why it manifests to the degree that it does in the first place, nor do such efforts do much to treat the underlying causes. In some ways, it's enforcement/regulation as a post hoc sticking plaster.

Herein lies the broad moral justification for also, in addition, doing more to acknowledge, address and indeed try to actively rectify some of the underlying and historical issues and the factors which have in part caused the patterns (and degrees) of inequality and unfairness that manifest in any given society in the present, be they economic, cultural, gender-based, racial, or whatever. Much of this could arguably come under the broad umbrella term 'social justice', which has become an unfairly maligned concept in some quarters, imo.

Yes. This. Well said. Now, be careful not to push prejudice further with those "social justice" initiatives. If you have any concern over the black-means-poor prejudice that forms the core of the racism of many real estate agents like these ones, shop owners keeping a special eye on black shoppers (presuming they can't afford to buy stuff at their store) and police officers pulling black people over who drive nice cars (presuming they can't have afforded it), then don't rest and of your "social justice" initiatives on using black as a proxy for poor.

And this is why I personally made the arguments for a different way of isolating and targeting racial profiling in the "colorblind" thread, during my participation in it: that we should blind the analytical layers to race, not merely pretend they are blind or appoint such pretenders, but to physically blind the layer through structural change, and when interviews are necessary and decisions made by interviewers, compare the percentage of offers to interview with percentage of interviews resulting in acceptance, and in the case of discrepancies, remediate.

Remediation is suggested in the form of filtering the application pool probabilistically to reduce representation of the detected "racist preferred" racial group randomly, filtering it to weight interviews offered, until the point at which applications submitted of equally qualified people happen at the same rate as acceptance of those people.

In the case of hiring, this would amount to giving the interviewees cause to sue the company (or the company an expectation to fire the interviewer or even force them to hire without interviewing), if there is a discrepancy between interview offers and actual hires on the basis of race

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And this is why I personally made the arguments for a different way of isolating and targeting racial profiling in the "colorblind" thread, during my participation in it: that we should blind the analytical layers to race, not merely pretend they are blind or appoint such pretenders, but to physically blind the layer through structural change, and when interviews are necessary and decisions made by interviewers, compare the percentage of offers to interview with percentage of interviews resulting in acceptance, and in the case of discrepancies, remediate.

I remember you making this argument before and I find it exemplary. It is exactly what should be done.

Remediation is suggested in the form of filtering the application pool probabilistically to reduce representation of the detected "racist preferred" racial group randomly, filtering it to weight interviews offered, until the point at which applications submitted of equally qualified people happen at the same rate as acceptance of those people.

I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but if you mean ignoring some applications because they are from a person who has a race characteristic that's "racist preferred", then you're going too far. If what you're saying doesn't include that, and merely measures to blind the decision makers from knowing the race of the applicants, then I absolutely support you on this.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now, be careful not to push prejudice further with those "social justice" initiatives. If you have any concern over the black-means-poor prejudice that forms the core of the racism of many real estate agents like these ones, shop owners keeping a special eye on black shoppers (presuming they can't afford to buy stuff at their store) and police officers pulling black people over who drive nice cars (presuming they can't have afforded it), then don't rest any of your "social justice" initiatives on using black as a proxy for poor.

Yes, I'm aware of your personal hobbyhorse. I think the concerns you tend to raise, almost every time the topic comes up, while real, are repeatedly overstated by you, to the point that your objections have been overall unhelpful in the discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

And this is why I personally made the arguments for a different way of isolating and targeting racial profiling in the "colorblind" thread, during my participation in it: that we should blind the analytical layers to race, not merely pretend they are blind or appoint such pretenders, but to physically blind the layer through structural change, and when interviews are necessary and decisions made by interviewers, compare the percentage of offers to interview with percentage of interviews resulting in acceptance, and in the case of discrepancies, remediate.

I remember you making this argument before and I find it exemplary. It is exactly what should be done.

Remediation is suggested in the form of filtering the application pool probabilistically to reduce representation of the detected "racist preferred" racial group randomly, filtering it to weight interviews offered, until the point at which applications submitted of equally qualified people happen at the same rate as acceptance of those people.

I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but if you mean ignoring some applications because they are from a person who has a race characteristic that's "racist preferred", then you're going too far. If what you're saying doesn't include that, and merely measures to blind the decision makers from knowing the race of the applicants, then I absolutely support you on this.

Ignoring the applications that are "racist preferred" in the context of established racism wherein the racist element cannot be otherwise isolated and removed.

Imagine that a company has a tendency to hire white applicants, 50% of interviews are offered to people of equal quality, but different race (similar to the applicants for housing in this undercover study), however 90% of hires are white.

This would, in and of itself, be grounds to censure the company in some way, but let's consider that, for whatever reason, they are unwilling or unable to address the discrepancies; perhaps the people doing the interviewing are across many departments, and input to the hiring decision is done by blind poll: the racist element cannot be isolated and removed.

The most reasonable solution to this would be to continue restricting the pool of approved interviews by filtering out the preferred race applicants until the post-interview hires mirror the pre-interview race statistics OR simply censure the company from making in-person interviews entirely.

Both are presumably "fair", addressing the lack of appropriate consideration for applicants on the basis of their race. In a very real way, this is simply mirroring what the company was already doing: failing to consider candidates on the basis of their race. Now, they will fail to consider candidates on the basis of their race in an unbiased way. If people of the "racist preferred" race wish to take issue with their lack of consideration, they can take it up with the company who was engaging in racist practices, though I would much prefer a situation where the company is restricted from interviewing at all when such situations arise, being forced to instead deal with the people they select from the resume/applicant pool.

Both are egalitarian solutions, even to the point where the applicant pool is completely (and probabilistically) occasionally completely culled on the racist-preferred applicant pool. The racist-preferred applicants will have no harder time in this scenario seeking a job as the racist-deferred candidates. The only difference is that they will have AS hard a time getting into a position, albeit through denial of interviews rather than through denial after interviews, granted culling could happen probabilistically AFTER interviews, too, but on pre-interview criterion to maintain blindness.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Now, be careful not to push prejudice further with those "social justice" initiatives. If you have any concern over the black-means-poor prejudice that forms the core of the racism of many real estate agents like these ones, shop owners keeping a special eye on black shoppers (presuming they can't afford to buy stuff at their store) and police officers pulling black people over who drive nice cars (presuming they can't have afforded it), then don't rest any of your "social justice" initiatives on using black as a proxy for poor.

Yes, I'm aware of your personal hobbyhorse. I think the concerns you tend to raise, almost every time the topic comes up, while real, are repeatedly overstated by you, to the point that your objections have been overall unhelpful in the discussion.

I've only repeatedly raised them because you've repeatedly ignored or discount them. You've advocated for such "social justice" policies based on race and gender proxies. Now you've yourself stumbled into this point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge for over a year. Pushing race/gender proxies is the foundation of prejudice, so doing it, even if with the best of intentions, encourages those prejudices.