The Color of Law pdf download

The Color of Law a Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein

We said they are “de facto segregated,” that they result from private practices, not from law or government policy.

THE COLOR OF LAW A FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF HOW OUR GOVERNMENT SEGREGATED AMERICA

Book description. 

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America is a 2017 book by Richard Rothstein, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The book argues that the racial segregation of American cities is not the result of private prejudice or market forces, but rather of explicit government policies at the local, state, and federal levels.

Rothstein begins by tracing the history of segregation in the United States, starting with the Jim Crow laws of the South. He then shows how these laws were replicated in the North, through practices such as redlining, which denied mortgages to black families, and blockbusting, which encouraged white homeowners to sell their homes at a loss in order to drive out black residents.

Rothstein also shows how the federal government played a role in segregation, through programs such as urban renewal, which demolished black neighborhoods and replaced them with high-rise public housing projects. He argues that these policies were not the result of ignorance or indifference, but rather of a deliberate attempt to segregate black people and white people.

The author also sheds light on the profound and lasting consequences of these segregation policies, illustrating how they contributed to persistent racial disparities in wealth, education, and health. He argues that understanding the government’s role in segregation is crucial for addressing contemporary issues of racial inequality.

Throughout “The Color of Law,” Rothstein marshals a wealth of historical evidence, legal cases, and personal stories to make a compelling case for the pervasive and damaging impact of government-sponsored segregation. He challenges conventional narratives that attribute segregation solely to private actions and prejudices, making a compelling argument that government policies were instrumental in creating and maintaining this deeply unjust system.

The Color of Law has been praised by scholars and activists for its groundbreaking research and its clear and concise writing. It has been called “a powerful and disturbing history” by the New York Times Book Review and “a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the roots of racial inequality in America” by the Washington Post.

Controversy surrounding the book

The book has also been the subject of some controversy. Some critics have accused Rothstein of overstating the role of government in segregation, while others have argued that he does not go far enough in calling for reparations for the victims of segregation.

Despite the controversy, The Color of Law has had a significant impact on the debate about racial segregation in America. It has been cited by the Supreme Court in several cases, and it has been used by activists to push for reforms to housing policy. The book has also helped to raise awareness of the history of segregation and its ongoing impact on American society

Why the book important

There are several compelling reasons why someone might choose to read “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America” by Richard Rothstein:

1. Understanding Historical Injustice: The book provides a thorough historical account of how government policies contributed to racial segregation in the United States. Reading it can help individuals gain a deeper understanding of the systemic injustice that has impacted African Americans and other minority groups for generations.

2. Awareness of Contemporary Issues: Rothstein’s book connects past policies to present-day disparities in housing, education, and wealth. It helps readers see the ongoing effects of historical segregation and how it continues to shape American society.

3. Policy Analysis: For those interested in public policy and urban planning, this book offers critical insights into how government decisions and actions can perpetuate inequality. It highlights the importance of equitable policy solutions.

4. Promoting Social Justice: “The Color of Law” serves as a powerful tool for advocates of social justice. It provides evidence and arguments that can be used to push for policy changes aimed at addressing historical injustices and promoting greater equity.

5. Broadening Perspectives: Reading this book can challenge preconceptions about the causes of segregation and encourage individuals to critically examine their own beliefs and assumptions about racial inequality.

6. Academic and Educational Purposes: Students, scholars, and educators in fields such as history, sociology, urban studies, and political science may find this book to be a valuable resource for research and coursework.

7. Promoting Dialogue: The book can serve as a catalyst for important conversations about race, discrimination, and the role of government in shaping society. It provides a solid foundation for informed discussions on these topics.

Some key findings from the book

Here are some of the key findings of the book:

• The federal government played a major role in segregating American cities, through programs such as urban renewal and redlining.
• These policies were not the result of ignorance or indifference, but rather of a deliberate attempt to segregate black people and white people.
• The effects of segregation are still felt today, in the form of concentrated poverty, poor schools, and high rates of crime in black neighborhoods.
• The only way to address the legacy of segregation is to take affirmative steps to desegregate housing and schools.

Takeaway: The Color of Law is a landmark book that has helped to change the way we think about racial segregation in America. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the roots of racial inequality in our country and what we can do to address it.

You might also be interested in reading the book titled: Skin Color And Identity Formation

Excerpts from the book

De facto segregation, we tell ourselves, has various causes. When African Americans moved into a neighborhood like Ferguson, a few racially prejudiced white families decided to leave, and then as the number of black families grew, the neighborhood deteriorated, and “white flight” followed.

Real estate agents steered whites away from black neighborhoods, and blacks away from white ones.

Banks discriminated with “redlining,” refusing to give mortgages to African Americans or extracting unusually severe terms from them with subprime loans.

African Americans haven’t generally gotten the educations that would enable them to earn sufficient incomes to live in white suburbs, and, as a result, many remain concentrated in urban neighborhoods. Besides, black families prefer to live with one another.

All this has some truth, but it remains a small part of the truth, submerged by a far more important one: until the last quarter of the twentieth century, racially explicit policies of federal, state, and local governments defined where whites and African Americans should live.

Today’s residential segregation in the North, South, Midwest, and West is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States.

 The policy was so systematic and forceful that its effects endure to the present time. Without our government’s purposeful imposition of racial segregation, the other causes—private prejudice, white flight, real estate steering, bank redlining, income differences, and self-segregation—still would have existed but with far less opportunity for expression.

Segregation by intentional government action is not de facto. Rather, it is what courts call de jure: segregation by law and public policy.

Residential racial segregation by state action is a violation of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment, written by our Founding Fathers, prohibits the federal government from treating citizens unfairly.

The Thirteenth Amendment, adopted immediately after the Civil War, prohibits slavery or, in general, treating African Americans as second-class citizens, while the Fourteenth Amendment, also adopted after the Civil War, prohibits states, or their local governments, from treating people either unfairly or unequally.

The applicability of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to government sponsorship of residential segregation will make sense to most readers.

Clearly, denying African Americans access to housing subsidies that were extended to whites constitutes unfair treatment and, if consistent, rises to the level of a serious constitutional violation. But it may be surprising that residential segregation also violates the Thirteenth Amendment. We typically think of the Thirteenth as only abolishing slavery.

 Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment does so, and Section 2 empowers Congress to enforce Section 1. In 1866, Congress enforced the abolition of slavery by passing a Civil Rights Act, prohibiting actions that it deemed perpetuated the characteristics of slavery. Actions that made African Americans second-class citizens, such as racial discrimination in housing, were included in the ban.

In 1883, though, the Supreme Court rejected this congressional interpretation of its powers to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Court agreed that Section 2 authorized Congress to “to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States,” but it did not agree that exclusions from housing markets could be a “badge or incident” of slavery. In consequence, these Civil Rights Act protections were ignored for the next century.

Today, however, most Americans understand that prejudice toward and mistreatment of African Americans did not develop out of thin air. The stereotypes and attitudes that support racial discrimination have their roots in the system of slavery upon which the nation was founded.

So to most of us, it should now seem reasonable to agree that Congress was correct when it determined that prohibiting African Americans from buying or renting decent housing perpetuated second-class citizenship that was a relic of slavery.

It also now seems reasonable to understand that if government actively promoted housing segregation, it failed to abide by the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and its relics.

This interpretation is not far-fetched. Indeed, it is similar to one that was eventually adopted by the Supreme Court in 1968 when it effectively rejected its 1883 decision.

In 1965, Joseph Lee Jones and his wife, Barbara Jo Jones, sued the Alfred H. Mayer Company, a St. Louis developer, who refused to sell them a home solely because Mr. Jones was black.

Three years later, the Supreme Court upheld the Joneses’ claim and recognized the validity of the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s declaration that housing discrimination was a residue of slave status that the Thirteenth Amendment empowered Congress to eliminate.

Yet because of an historical accident, policy makers, the public, and even civil rights advocates have failed to pay much attention to the implications of the Jones v. Mayer decision. Two months before the Supreme Court announced its ruling, Congress adopted the Fair

 Housing Act, which was then signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Although the 1866 law had already determined that housing discrimination was unconstitutional, it gave the government no powers of enforcement.

The Fair Housing Act provided for modest enforcement, and civil rights groups have used this law, rather than the earlier statute, to challenge housing discrimination.

But when they did so, we lost sight of the fact that housing discrimination did not become unlawful in 1968;

it had been so since 1866. Indeed, throughout those 102 years, housing discrimination was not only unlawful but was the imposition of a badge of slavery that the Constitution mandates us to remove