Race and Housing

[The text below was adapted from a speech I gave recently at the 2009 Taylor Symposium at IUPUI regarding the American Promise and its relation to housing]

Attorney General Eric Holder was right to bring discussions about race to the forefront last week during Black History Month, even if he was wrong about us being a nation of cowards. I don't think it is cowardice that keeps us from discussing race, it would be nice if it were because then like the lion in The Wizard of Oz we could just recognize that we are not cowards and all would be well. Rather, I think it is comfort, or comfortableness, that keeps us from discussing race - it is easier for everyone to just not talk about race or to just talk about it with others like themselves, so that no one is offended and no one offends, with the result being an uneasy silence that reflects tension, not peace. For those linguists in the room, that behavior is better described as sloth, not cowardice, and in case you've forgotten sloth is one of the seven deadly sins.

There are many ways to measure racial and economic segregation. This slide provides one such measure, the Dissimilarity Index - this Index measure what % of the minority community would need to reside in a different census tract in order to have a random distribution of both majority and minority households. There are several other measures of segregation that are often used as well, I've chosen the Dissimilarity Index because it is one of the more commonly used measures and is readily understood. As you can see from this slide, the good news is that segregation in the Indianapolis metropolitan area improved from 1990 to 2000. Compared to other cities in the United States, Indianapolis ranked 13th in 2000 based on the Dissimilarity Index and ranked better than other Midwestern cities such as Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. Further, Indianapolis also improved by the same measure when considering income alone or income and race combined.

But more recently, 2008 marked the 10th anniversary of the agreement entered into by the United States, the State of Indiana, and the various school districts located within Marion County to end school busing in Indianapolis. You may ask what school busing has to do with housing? In this case, a lot. The agreement to end busing did so with a supplemental agreement to shift the emphasis from desegregated schools to desegregated housing. Now, if you think desegregating schools is difficult, pack a lunch and get ready for a fight when you decide instead to desegregate housing.

Don't misunderstand. I realize that busing is a deeply controversial issue that has proponents and opponents on both sides, of all races and ethnicities, of all political stripes. I am not arguing for or against busing, it was what it was for both better and worse. And, I am not here to criticize past efforts or policies in this area or the entities involved. But I will adamantly argue that the scope of our policies regarding housing desegregation has been limited compared to the power of busing and have likely led to fewer opportunities for low income minorities that want to participate in suburban housing and educational options.

In this coming decade busing will officially end as the remainder of the phase out period passes. We must decide if our children, let alone ourselves, are better or worse off to live in racially, ethnically, and economically integrated neighborhoods? I think the answer is we are better off to do so, both because it promotes great understanding of each other and because it makes for an entire metropolitan area that is more economically sustainable. It is time to have this conversation before another decade passes and the Taylor Symposium is a good place to start.