Housing Discrimination: Legalizing Hate?

There are certain classes of discrimination that are protected under federal law: race, gender/sexuality, color/ethnicity, ancestry/national origin, age, familial status, religion, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. Discriminating against these groups in places of employment, housing, or education are illegal and can be prosecuted. A presentation that I organized about renter's rights in Pittsburgh over the summer enlightened me on these aspects of discrimination of which I was unaware. The stories that the representatives shared about fair housing violations were shocking and raised questions for me about the nature of discrimination, the legality of discrimination, and the types that are not outlawed.

I have previously discussed the politics of hegemony and the negotiation of power in the highly hierarchical social and cultural structure of the Western-dominated world. This meeting brought to light for me the power struggles that are manufactured in everyday relationships. Outside of the larger hierarchies of humans, nations, and cultures, there are power struggles in personal relationships, such as renter and landlord. Before someone even becomes a renter, the landlord is the gatekeeper to shelter and a home for many in Pittsburgh and around the world. What is not shocking is that fair housing organizations file complaints on behalf of discrimination on the classes above. What I did find interesting, though, was the admittance of types of discrimination (defined as creating distinctions and outlining differences ) that are legal ways to choose renters.

The difference between outlawed and enabled avenues of discrimination became apparent to me quite quickly: choice. Perhaps arguably veteran status, religion, and familial status are choices in some ways, but economic situation, upbringing, and traditions form the bulk of these decisions over personal choice in some cases. The choice in these situations can hardly be defined as detrimental, poor decisions, or somehow reprehensible.

Other choices, however, ones that can be used as discrimination, could be argued to be the result of poor decision-making. Examples of this type of discrimination (which I would consider "choices") that are allowed are smoking, credit history, personality, or pets. These four examples could be considered discrimination based on the choices that the applicant has made. Smoking is a personal choice that is a potentially rental-damaging habit. As one landlord in the meeting brought up, it can be quite expensive to steam clean an apartment after a smoker has lived there, and there's no guarantee that the smell can be removed, damaging their ability to gain additional tenants and revenue. Though he regretted rejecting applications from smokers, he said at the end of the day that his property was a business. Credit history is obviously influenced by one's financial capabilities, but it is at least in part determined by one's actions with one's money, in terms of being reliable and responsible. One's personality is something more intangible, but the representative assured the landlord that differentiated based on personality preferences was allowed. Having pets is almost always a choice, and one, just like smoking, that can be damaging to an apartment and its upkeep. These forms of discrimination outline choices that people make for which landlords are allowed.

As I've discussed previously, when it comes down to choice, there is an alienation of certain groups. Not everyone has the same opportunities, backgrounds, upbringings, and choices in life. One could argue that some of the "choices" I've outlined above are not actually choices, especially when one thinks of credit history. Credit history is linked to another form of differentiating potential renting applicants: ability to pay the rent. Simply put, this can be a form of discrimination if one considers the economic opportunities that some have and others do not. Economic abilities are not protected, though, for the law still upholds the right of the landlord to receive money from renters. Progress is being made by providing public services for those who need housing assistance.

The final point I would like to make is simply a research/methodological question. For those trying to "prove" housing discrimination, fair housing groups send various testers to renting facilities to see if any discrimination occurs. The simple idea is that if someone is told that they haven't been accepted and someone else is, who is to say that the choice that was made was based off of protected discrimination? As someone who is interested in research methodologies, I find answering these questions quite interesting. It is hard and complicated to prove with any certainty, but the housing organizations rely on the offering of the apartment to one person over another as operational proof of discrimination. It appears to be successful as well, based on her many stories of case wins.

I'm beginning to feel a bit like Foucault in my recent blog assertions that "power is everywhere". In the objects and articles that interest me, I find the underlying power struggles an unmistakable pattern. The way that words, laws, and politics discipline and negotiate this power is a way that I find unity between rhetoric and cultural studies in my research, if only tangentially.