When challenged with proof that indicates that linguistic profiling was applied to refuse housing, insurance, or leases to minority ethnic groups, litigants frequently fell back to Cochran’s claim that one cannot draw any ethnic or racial inference on the basis of talk heard over the phone, or, in Mr. Cochran’s matter, via an intercom network.
Discrimination in the housing market manifests itself in various ways and has a lengthy record in our nation and the Bay Area. As a result of this issue, the percentage of Black Americans who own their own home is frighteningly low. According to Redfin, only 44 percent of Black Americans would purchase a home in 2020, representing a nationwide lag. When compared to white Americans, this figure is 74%. Systemic racism has perpetuated disparities in homeownership rates throughout the Bay Area, and Black households who can buy a home frequently face discrimination (Glover, 2021). In accordance to the National Association of Realtors, only 34% of Black Californians own a property. These figures are even lower in the Bay Area. According to Redfin, only 33% of Black residents of San Francisco own a home in comparison to 61% of white San Franciscans. In San Jose, the black homeownership rate is 31 percent, while the white homeownership rate is 65 percent (Glover, 2021). And black applicants for mortgage loans are declined at three times the rate of white candidates (National Association of Realtors, 2021).
Another factor restricting Black property ownership is a burdensome debt due to the wealth inequality perpetuated by systematic racism. Minority home seekers continue to face subtle discrimination, according to HUD User (2022). Researchers discovered that, when all three stages of the paired-testing procedure are included, the marginalised are at a drawback in comparison to whites, mainly in two of the three stages: Hispanic, Asian, and Black renters were just as possibly as white renters to have meetings with rental brokers during the rental inquiry process. During these encounters, renters of color took in about 11.4 percent fewer homes and were offered 4.2 percent negligible units than similarly competent white renters. Hispanic renters were informed of 12.5 percent negligible units and established 7.5 percent small number of units than white renters. Asians were shown 9.8 percent negligible accessible units and were informed about 9.8 percent negligible obtainable units than whites.
Hispanic and Asian homebuyers were equally likely to secure a meeting with a sales representative during the inquiry process; nevertheless, colored homebuyers were marginally less likely than white homebuyers to do so. Black purchasers learned approximately 17% fewer homes and were shown 17.7% negligible number of properties than similarly eligible white homebuyers. Asian purchasers were offered 18.8 percent fewer properties and knew about 15.5 percent fewer available homes than whites. Hispanics and whites did view or learn about remarkably contrasting units of residences (HUD User, 2022).
Minority home seekers with easily recognizable ethnicities faced higher prejudice than minorities who may be taken for white. Concerning guiding, most available homes for rent and buying presented to the testers were in majority-white districts; nevertheless, the distinction in the ethnic mix of the communities displayed to minority home seekers and white home seekers was not substantial. Likewise, there were no statistically outstanding contrasts in the occurrence and intensity of prejudice by urban region or area. Generally, having their searches constrained by discriminatory tactics of deals and rental brokers raises the expense and time the marginalised must expend on locating a decent house and limits the options accessible to them and their households (HUD User, 2022).
The NFHA realised that (2) numerous potential renters and home buyers were ignorant of the illegitimacy of linguistic profiling, so they created a string of adverts warning Latino and African American populace to be cautious of these subtle kinds of bias, as shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2. (https://web.stanford.edu/~jbaugh/Black%20Linguistics.pdf)
Testers for the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) typically strive to establish the reality of linguistic profiling related to varied kinds of housing prejudice without the assistance of linguistic studies. According to Horwitz (1999), the scenario is as follows: Testers for the non-profit organization (the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington) reached out to more than 60 insurance companies to inquire about renters’ cover. Feedback to Latino and Black caller-ups were contrasted to reactions to white callers in 150 cases, and 45 percent demonstrated bias.
There have been federal laws enacted by the Unite States Housing and Development (HUD) Department, such as The Fair Housing Act in 1968, that ban discrimination against home searchers. The act’s success was that it reduced segregation to some measure. Despite this, underprivileged communities continue to face subtle racial bias and discrimination. One of the impediments is the regulatory changes implemented under Trump’s presidency, one of which is a provision that makes it more difficult for anyone to submit a complaint against housing discrimination alleging “disparate impact” (McQueen, 2022).
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that linguistic profiling will continue as long as human language persists, owing to our superior aural abilities as a species. The task for Americans is to be wise, patient, and tolerant of individuals whose linguistic origin vary significantly from our own. This will emphasize the advantages of favorable language profiling while rejecting the practice of biased linguistic profiling, which stokes the smoldering remains of ethnic strife.
Assignment status: Solved by our experts