Homeowner's Associations are an enigma in my mind and always have been. We live in a society already governed by laws and rules in so many forms and yet people choose to constrain themselves under yet another set. My recent conversation with a coworker (see my previous posting here) has led me to a deeper examination of these organizations and a drive to answer the question: "Are Homeowner's Associations discriminatory?"
For those who do not know what a homeowner's association (hereafter referred to as HOAs) is, here is a quick run down... An HOA is born when a neighborhood of homeowners comes together and agree to a certain set of rules by which they all agree to live. Generally these rules are established in order for the homeowners to maintain a peaceful enjoyment of their property as well as preserving their property values by ensuring the quality of the neighborhood is maintained. Some common rules include keeping your lawn mowed, getting your exterior paint color approved before painting, and no tin foil in your windows. Not only do ALL homeowners have to agree to this association, but when new residents move in they also have a responsibility to sign on and agree to the same rules. Of course these rules are not unchangeable, there are elected officials from among the residents and plenty of voting and challenging of the rules, but that is the overall lay of the land where HOAs are concerned.
At first glance anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the civil rights movement can see how this concept goes bad quickly. In the 60s and before there were rules that created "white" neighborhoods and "black" neighborhoods. It was another extension of segregation and discrimination, and a very effective one at that.
This brings up a very important point... How were these organizations allowed to continue and in some areas thrive if they were discriminatory?
The answer is simply that they don't have to be a method of discrimination. As long as the rules are not prejudicial against any protected class and are enforced equally among all classes they are perfectly legal. For the record there are 7 federally protected classes which are: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. Some states and even counties have added their own additional classes but I doubt any of them include lawn length or house color (though our nation does have some rather ridiculous laws). As long as the nuclear white Christian family is cited for leaving their trash cans out alongside the black Islamic single mother, the Korean elderly couple, and the interracial gay couple it is perfectly legal. If there is even a suspicion of discrimination it can be brought before the courts to determine whether or not discrimination has really occurred.
That really about sums it up. We cannot see discrimination in every organization and still claim to be moving towards equality. But maybe I'm just incapable of seeing discrimination the way my coworker seems to believe. You decide...
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Too Angry for Words... Almost
Today I was judged based on the color of my skin.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
Monday, March 12, 2012
"You don't need to see his identification" *
The winner today is straight out of Texas, though the article can be found in the LA Times.
The question at hand is: should ID be required to vote.
My short answer, yes!
The article I reference is a fairly unbiased piece and I would like to take a moment to lay out both sides of the argument.
On the Pro (for ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID reduces voter fraud. The minor case includes the more specific point of reducing the ability of illegal aliens to vote, you have to be a US citizen to vote after all. The minor case is not specifically stated in the article, but it can be extrapolated from the circumstances.
On the Con (against ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID is discriminatory. The minor case includes clauses in the Voting Rights Act that has dictated that certain states must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election procedures. There is obvious historical context here in the great lengths that some southern states went through in order to prevent African Americans from voting before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.
The problem with the Con side is that these laws are not singling out any one group or individual. ALL people would be required to show a specific, approved form of ID in order to vote regardless of their race, religion, color, or creed. It's not like the 50s when African Americans were required to guess the number of beans in a jar while Caucasians could vote without this ridiculous hurdle. It is possible for any, and every, legal citizen of the United States to obtain a government issued ID. In fact, as the article points out, ID is already required to open a bank account, board a plane, and many other nearly essential activities. Why should voting be treated as anything less?
It is important to note that the "data" referenced by the assistant attorney general claims 800,000 people, not citizens, are without a government ID and 38% of these are Latino. Yes, 38% is a big percentage, but you must consider it in relation to the overall demographic of the area. The Latino population in Texas is approximately 6.7 million (32%) according to the 2010 census so if about 38% of the 800k figure are Latino, that is roughly representative of the state's demographic.
Data from the Department of Human Services indicates that there are approximately 700,000 illegal residents in the state of Texas, and 54% of those are Hispanic/Latino. This data suggests to me that we do have a problem with voter fraud requiring more stringent registration methods. If all of these numbers are correct (and I'm sure there is a liberal margin of error) there could be more than 75,000 illegal Hispanic/Latino immigrants who are currently exercising a voting privilege that is not theirs. The total number of illegal immigrants in Texas alone who are voting grows to well over 100,000 when all other races/nationalities are taken into account.
The bottom line, cases of voter discrimination should be dealt with harshly, but requiring ID to vote is not discriminatory. This is another case of politicians manipulating numbers they don't understand to make an argument appear valid when it's not.
*So I don't get in trouble with George Lucas, the title quote is from Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope
The question at hand is: should ID be required to vote.
My short answer, yes!
The article I reference is a fairly unbiased piece and I would like to take a moment to lay out both sides of the argument.
On the Pro (for ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID reduces voter fraud. The minor case includes the more specific point of reducing the ability of illegal aliens to vote, you have to be a US citizen to vote after all. The minor case is not specifically stated in the article, but it can be extrapolated from the circumstances.
On the Con (against ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID is discriminatory. The minor case includes clauses in the Voting Rights Act that has dictated that certain states must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election procedures. There is obvious historical context here in the great lengths that some southern states went through in order to prevent African Americans from voting before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.
The problem with the Con side is that these laws are not singling out any one group or individual. ALL people would be required to show a specific, approved form of ID in order to vote regardless of their race, religion, color, or creed. It's not like the 50s when African Americans were required to guess the number of beans in a jar while Caucasians could vote without this ridiculous hurdle. It is possible for any, and every, legal citizen of the United States to obtain a government issued ID. In fact, as the article points out, ID is already required to open a bank account, board a plane, and many other nearly essential activities. Why should voting be treated as anything less?
It is important to note that the "data" referenced by the assistant attorney general claims 800,000 people, not citizens, are without a government ID and 38% of these are Latino. Yes, 38% is a big percentage, but you must consider it in relation to the overall demographic of the area. The Latino population in Texas is approximately 6.7 million (32%) according to the 2010 census so if about 38% of the 800k figure are Latino, that is roughly representative of the state's demographic.
Data from the Department of Human Services indicates that there are approximately 700,000 illegal residents in the state of Texas, and 54% of those are Hispanic/Latino. This data suggests to me that we do have a problem with voter fraud requiring more stringent registration methods. If all of these numbers are correct (and I'm sure there is a liberal margin of error) there could be more than 75,000 illegal Hispanic/Latino immigrants who are currently exercising a voting privilege that is not theirs. The total number of illegal immigrants in Texas alone who are voting grows to well over 100,000 when all other races/nationalities are taken into account.
The bottom line, cases of voter discrimination should be dealt with harshly, but requiring ID to vote is not discriminatory. This is another case of politicians manipulating numbers they don't understand to make an argument appear valid when it's not.
*So I don't get in trouble with George Lucas, the title quote is from Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Civil Rights Movement Marches On
Here is a great article I just read in the Seattle times.
It is nice to see another state passing legislation to properly define and ensure the rights of it's citizens. What I find especially heartening in this article is that they include the issue of gay rights in the Civil Right's movement. It is interesting to consider that women's suffrage was considered part of the Women's Rights Movement. And legislation for the LGBT community is commonly referred to as Gay Rights. But the movement that that gave minorities the right to vote among many other things is named the Civil Rights Movement and not the Minority Rights Movement or something similar.
In reality all of these are part of a/the Civil Rights Movement though the movement that holds the name is/was much larger and all encompassing than the rest. The name is really neither here nor there, just interesting to note.
It is nice to see another state passing legislation to properly define and ensure the rights of it's citizens. What I find especially heartening in this article is that they include the issue of gay rights in the Civil Right's movement. It is interesting to consider that women's suffrage was considered part of the Women's Rights Movement. And legislation for the LGBT community is commonly referred to as Gay Rights. But the movement that that gave minorities the right to vote among many other things is named the Civil Rights Movement and not the Minority Rights Movement or something similar.
In reality all of these are part of a/the Civil Rights Movement though the movement that holds the name is/was much larger and all encompassing than the rest. The name is really neither here nor there, just interesting to note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)