By Rik Keller
Part Two in a series, this article examines historic racial/ethnic demographics in Davis compared to surrounding areas and California as a whole in order to determine what sort of effect historic patterns of discrimination may have had.
“The Past Isn’t Dead. It Isn’t Even Past”
The first installment of this series “Why Is So Davis So White? A Brief History of Discrimination” provided an overview of mortgage loan redlining, restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory housing practices in the U.S., with examples from Davis showing the extent of overt discrimination in housing practices that led to excluding non-white populations from specific areas.
The article concluded with a brief summary that described how In Davis—as in many areas of the U.S.—redlining, restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory practices effectively locked out minorities from being able to participate in one of the greatest mass opportunities for wealth accumulation in U.S. history: the post-WWII housing boom. And even as overtly discriminatory practices started to be curtailed, post-WWII municipal zoning practices in the 1950s— especially in fast-growing suburban areas—emphasized large-lot single-family homes as a way to exclude more affordable housing types and to continue patterns of racial/ethnic/income segregation. One common misconception when discussing housing is that discrimination in the U.S. ended some time in the 1960s. Davis is an example of how the wealth disparities that were accentuated by these policies and practices persist today with residential patterns and housing opportunities distributed along particular racial/ethnic lines, along with ongoing discrimination.
Background on the Data
This author collected U.S. Census data from 1970 to 2016 in order to provide comparisons among different jurisdictions/geographic areas. This was not done for prescriptive purposes to suggest ideal distributions of populations along racial/ethnic lines, but rather to provide a reference or baseline for comparison of changes over time for a descriptive analysis: If we want to describe how “white” Davis is, we need to provide a comparison to other places.
However, comparisons of race/ethnicity across different time periods are problematic because of different questions and changes in methodology in the U.S. Census. Therefore, if data for a jurisdiction like Davis were looked at on their own, changes over time that are caused by definitional or tabulation changes might falsely appear as an increase of a particular population. One 
example of changes in methodology is the following:
“In the case of Other race, there was a dramatic population increase from 1970 to 1980. This reflected the addition of a question on Hispanic origin to the 100-percent questionnaire, an increased propensity for Hispanics not to identify themselves as White, and a change in editing procedures to accept reports of “Other race” for respondents who wrote in Hispanic entries such as Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican. In 1970, such responses in the Other race category were reclassified and tabulated as White.”
[“Historical Census Statistics On Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, For Large Cities And Other Urban Places In The United States” by Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung, Population Division, Working Paper No. 76, U.S. Census Bureau, February 2005]
Through 1950, census-takers commonly determined the race of the people they counted. From 1960 on, Americans could choose their own race. Starting in 2000, Americans could include themselves in more than one racial category. Before that, many multiracial people were counted in only one racial category. The decline in the African American population share from the 1990 Census to the 2000 Census nationwide can be explained by that. Even from the 2000 to 2010 Census there were changes in the wording of questions on race and Hispanic origin that may have caused apparent shifts in demographics.
Another reason for “baselining” is to track relative shares at given points in time as well as changes over time. This is helpful in determining, for example, if California has a greater representation of minority groups compared to the U.S as a whole, or how a particular locality compares to both its geographic context in California as well as to neighboring jurisdictions. It can provide indications of anomalies in demographics that should be investigated to try to explain causes.
This article discusses the four largest racial/ethnic groups in California and their share of the overall population: White, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and African American (there is also an “Other” category analyzed, which, for the purposes of the article and comparisons over time, includes the Census categories of “American Indian and Alaskan Native” plus “Other”, and, from the year 2000 on, adds in “Two or More Races”).
Because race/ethnicity are accounted for differently in the Census and are overlapping categories, looking at various tabulations for the “white population” does not provide an adequate base of comparison and indeed leads many casual observers of this type of data astray from a closer examination of the makeup and racial/ethnic diversity of non-white groups. Therefore, somewhat counterintuitively, this examination of “How White Is Davis?” intends to foreground the composition and share of racial/ethnic minority groups in addition to simply reporting on the White population to answer that question. Additionally, this has been done because the focus of this series is on discrimination that has led to under-representation of certain minority groups in certain places.
There are several further issues to discuss before jumping into the data. First, the Census did not start tracking Hispanic origin until the 1970 Census (though the term “Hispanic” did not start to be used until the 1980 Census). There was a “Mexican” identifier in the 1930 Census that was eliminated by 1940; there was a question about Spanish language in the 1940 Census, but not in 1950 or 1960; and there was a question about Spanish surname for five Southwestern states starting with the 1950 Census. Because of this, it is difficult to enumerate Hispanic population before 1970. However, the racial/ethnic distribution patterns that we see in 1970 can be presumed to be partly the result of the historic discriminatory practices discussed in the first article in the series. And these patterns from 1970 can be seen to be carried forward to the present day.
In the Census, “Hispanic Origin” is an ethnic classification based on country of origin and language: “Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before arriving in the United States. People who identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race.” On the other hand, the Census “collects race data according to U.S. Office of Management and Budget guidelines… People may choose to report more than one race group. People of any race may be of any ethnic origin.” [https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race.html]
The White population figures presented in this article for 1970 include persons of Hispanic origin because this author was unable to find a Census tabulation down to the level of “place” geography that separated this data. For years since then (including the decennial Census from 1980-2010, not presented in this article) data is available that reports the White (alone, not “two or more races”) non-Hispanic/Latino population. To provide an example of how definitions change the tabulations, in California in 2017 the “White alone” (not two or more races) population was estimated by the Census at 72.4% while the “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” population was estimated at 37.2%.
Demographic Data 1970-2016
Table 1 below shows a compilation of data for total population and population by different racial/ethnic categories (which also evolved over time in terms of how the Census captured them) for California as a whole, Davis, Woodland, and the remainder of Yolo County excluding Davis and Woodland from the 1970 Census and from 2016 Census estimates. The table shows total, White, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, African American, and Other population counts since 1970, 1970 was chosen as a starting point for the comparison because the largest minority racial/ethnic group in California (and especially in Yolo County) is the Hispanic/Latino population, and there is only reliable data for that group since 1970. While the author collected, tabulated, and analyzed data for every decennial Census from 1970 to 2010, this article just discusses the overall change from 1970 to 2016 in order to keep data overload for the reader at a minimum.
As shown in the table, in 1970, the White population accounted for about 89% of the total California population, 94% of the Yolo County population excluding Davis and Woodland, 96% of the Woodland population, and 94% of the Davis population. The Hispanic/Latino population accounted for about 14% of the total California population, 21% of the Yolo County population excluding Davis and Woodland, 21% of the Woodland population, but only 4.5% of the Davis population in 1970.
African Americans had the second highest share of the total 1970 California population at 7.0%, but had very low representation in Yolo County (1.2%), Woodland (1.1%), and Davis (1.4%).
Asians represented 2.8% of the statewide population in 1970, with slightly lower rates in Yolo County (2.5%), a slightly higher rate in Davis (3.8%), and a significantly lower rate in Woodland at 0.9%.
For the city of Davis, the biggest conclusion from the 1970 data is that while the White population percentage in Davis was similar to California and other local jurisdictions, because of the way the categories are tabulated just looking at these figures masks some important differences. One of these is that the Hispanic/Latino population—the most populous minority group in the state and in the region—had a very small representation in Davis at less than ⅓ of the statewide share.
This disparity is even more striking given Davis’ location in Yolo County where both Woodland and remainder of Yolo County (not including Davis or Woodland) had a much higher representation of Hispanics/ Latinos at more than 4.5 times the rate in Davis. This data on the Hispanic/Latino population compared to the White population in Davis provides strong evidence that this group was excluded from Davis based on historic discriminatory lending patterns, restrictive CC&Rs, and other factors discussed in Part One of this series.
Table 1
As shown in Table 1 above, these disparities continued forward from 1970 such that persons of Hispanic/Latino origin only accounted for an estimated 14.3% of the total Davis population in 2016 compared to 38.6% in California, 46.1% in Woodland and 34.5% in Yolo County exclusive of Davis and Woodland.
The share of the African American population in Yolo County has been very low historically compared to California as a whole (though it has increased some). The representation of African Americans in the Woodland population (1.3%) was very low, while the rest of Yolo County excluding Davis and Woodland was at a slightly higher rate (3.0%) than Davis (2.8%).
Davis had an estimated Asian population share in 2016 (22.5%) that was more than California as a whole (14%), the only category analyzed for which this is the case. Woodland had a much lower share (9%), while Yolo County excluding Woodland and Davis was still significantly below state levels at 12%.
Davis had a very low percentage of “Other” category in 2016, which includes the “other” Census category along with people who selected “two or more races”. At less than 11%, Davis share of persons in this category was only 60% of figures for California, Woodland, and Yolo County average excluding Woodland and Davis of 18-19%
Finally, the White population (“White alone, not Hispanic or Latino”) in Davis was 55.6% of the total population in 2016, about 45% more than the 38.4% figure in California as a whole. Woodland’s percentage of White persons was slightly more than California at 41.6% Yolo County exclusive of Davis and Woodland was at 46.5%. As discussed below, the relatively large Asian population in Davis somewhat masks the underrepresentation of other minority racial/ethnic groups if only the White population percentage were examined.
How the UC Davis Student Population Influences the Racial/Ethnic Mix in Davis
Before drawing conclusions from the racial/ethnic mix just described, it is important to examine the size and growth of the UC Davis student population and its effect on the city of Davis population. This is especially true given that UC Davis enrollment has grown at a much faster rate than City of Davis, Yolo County, and state of California population growth since 2000, and also given that UC Davis has housed a smaller share of students on campus over that time. While students living on-campus are not counted in Census tabulations as part of the city of Davis, students living off-campus in Davis are included. To the extent that the demographics of UC Davis students are different from the demographics of the rest of the city, this transient student population can skew analysis of the changes over time of the relative diversity of Davis compared to other areas.
One way to account for this is to look at cross-tabulations of race/ethnicity and age. The 18 to 24 year age cohort can be used as a generalized proxy for the student population and compared to population in other areas. As it turns out, there is an important caveat about the data for Davis regarding the Asian population in particular: As shown in Table 2 below, about 51% of the Asian population in Davis is college-aged (18-24), whereas that age cohort makes up only about 9% of the Asian population in California as a whole and 10% in Woodland. Without Asian UC Davis students living off-campus in town, the share of the Asian population in Davis as a percentage of the total would be less than California.
Table 2
Additionally, concentration of the population in the college-aged cohort is not limited to the Asian population in Davis as there are similar statistics for the Hispanic/Latino population. As shown in Table 3 below, over 37% of the Hispanic/Latino population in Davis is college-aged, which is more than 3 times the representation of that age cohort in the Hispanic/Latino population of California and Woodland, both at around 13%. Without Hispanic/Latino UC Davis students living off-campus in town, the population would be even more underrepresented in Davis.
Table 3
Looking at this issue in a different way, Table 4 below shows the percentage of Hispanic/Latino population compared to the total population within each age cohort. As shown in the table, the age cohort where Hispanics/Latinos have the highest share of the total population in Davis is in the 5 to 17 year age group, at 20.2% of the total population. However, this share is still several multiples less than the same statistic for California (51.6%; 2.5 times more) and Woodland (60.6%; 3 times more).
Table 4
Older Age Groups
As shown in Table 2 above, the percentage of the Asian population in older age groups in Davis is very low at only just above 4% for both the 55-64 year age cohort and the 65+ year age group. In comparison, statewide across California and in Woodland, these age cohorts account for about 13% each of the total Asian population.
Table 3 above shows that Hispanics/Latinos in older age groups are severely underrepresented in Davis and only make up about 5.2% (2.4% for 55 to 64 years + 2.8% for 65+ years) of the overall Hispanic/Latino population in Davis, compared to almost 3 times those rates in California and Woodland, with both around 14%.
And while, as shown in Table 1, Hispanics/Latinos make up just 14% of the total population in Davis which is an extremely low figure compared to California, Woodland, and Yolo County, as Table 4 shows, they only make up 4% of the total population in the 55 to 64 year and 65+ year age groups in Davis, more than 3 times less than their share in the overall Davis population.
Another important conclusion to be drawn from the data broken down by age group is that the representation of Whites in the Davis population is particularly pronounced in older age groups. As shown in Table 5 below, “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” persons in 2016 Census estimates made up 79.5% of the total Davis population of persons ages 55 to 64 and 81.5% of the total Davis population of persons at 65+ years of age. These are much higher rates than for the overall population of Davis (55.6%;see Table 1), as well as for the share of the total population aged 55 to 64 years and 65+ years in California (51.8% and 59.4%) and Woodland (56.0% and 63.8%).
Table 5
Conclusion
Overall, Davis has a much lower representation of racial/ethnic minorities than the state of California as a whole as well as Woodland and Yolo County, and the representation of Whites is substantially higher particularly in the 55+ age cohort.
The most significant underrepresented group in Davis is Hispanics/Latinos who made up almost 39% of California’s population in 2016. In Davis, that group was only 14% of the total population. For some historical perspective, in 2016, the percentage of Hispanics/Latinos out of the total population in Davis was at such a low level (14%) that it was at approximately the same percentage that Hispanics/Latinos were of the total California population almost 50 years ago in 1970. Furthermore, the representation of Hispanics/Latinos among the older population in Davis in 2016 (4%) was at such a low level that it was less than the representation of that group in the overall population of Davis almost 50 years ago in 1970 (4.5%).
These disparities are further compounded by the homeownership rate among the Hispanic/Latino population in Davis, which, at 23.9% in 2010 (the most recent Census data available), was less than half of the homeownership rate among white non-Hispanics in Davis at 52.0%. Homeownership rates for Hispanics/Latinos in California and Woodland were almost identical at 44.5% and 44.3% respectively, while the remainder of Yolo County besides Davis and Woodland had a homeownership rate among Hispanics/Latinos of 50.4%. Overall, Hispanics/Latinos were only 5.5% of all homeowners in Davis in 2010, a rate almost 4 times less than in California at 21.4% and more than 5 times less than in Woodland at 28.2%.
Part three of this series will expand the discussion on these disparities in housing in Davis and address “Keeping Davis White: Continuing Exclusion?” What policies and programs have had or would have the effect of continuing these exclusionary patterns? What is the legal status of these programs and policies? And how do we enact policies and programs to avoid continuing these past patterns and make the community more inclusive?
This article will also discuss the background and legislative intent of the language in Measure R (2010) regarding the policy goal of an “adequate housing supply to meet internal City needs,” including the statement in the 2007 City Of Davis General Plan Update regarding “the primary reason for city residential growth to provide housing opportunities for the local workforce,” the development and subsequent suspension of the City’s Middle Income housing program from 2005-2009 that was intended to partially address the internally-generated housing need for the low and moderate income workforce, and the weakening in 2018 of the provisions for low-income housing in the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Part One here: Why Is Davis So White? A Brief History of Housing Discrimination
Rik Keller is a university instructor in communication studies and social work. He has 17+ years of professional experience in demographic analysis and housing policy & analysis in Texas, Oregon, and California after obtaining his master’s degree in city planning. He is also a 10+ year Davis resident and a current renter.
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Question: How White is Davis Anyway?
Answer: Very, Very, Very White!
Actually Madison, WI is very very very white. Davis is just very white.
We can have a new town motto”
“Come to Davis, we are not as white as Madison, WI”
We can have a new town motto
Come to Davis unless you are white.
Davis is what it is. If you don’t like it, move!
Really? Love it or leave it? As oppose to work for change?
“Davis is what it is. If you don’t like it, move!”
A possible town Motto?
Los Angeles has an over-representation of Latinos. Should LA work for change?
“Davis is what it is. If you don’t like it, move!”
Wow! I have felt like saying that every time someone has posted on how Davis has to “grow or die”, or a developer postulates that the only alternative to “growth” , usually rapid growth, is “stagnation” completely ignoring the concept of homeostasis or even of balance.
But no, wait, I haven’t felt like that at all. Because I can make the realization that not everyone shares my own preferences and priorities.
Can’t help but think of Johnny Carson’s possible response:
“It’s so white that . . .”
Here’s a useful graphic from the US Census data (ACS) that serves as a companion to the influence of age cohorts that Rik discusses in his article.
Matt:
Thanks for the graphic, but it needs a little work (the High School age population in town is not that big, and all the numbers at the bottom are zeros)…
Ken, the source data can be sliced and diced a number of different ways. This particular website slices it in 5-year increments, so the fourth bar is the 16-20 age group, which includes 2+ years of college students.
With that said, it looks a bit high to me too.
Matt: that data doesn’t seem like it is correct. I looked up data for the 2016 ACS Census estimates for the 15-19 age group in Davis (the “15” row in the chart you linked to) and the share of the total population is only 9.7%. I also looked up data for the 20-24 age group (the “20” row in the chart you linked to) and the share of the total population is 26.5%.
Based on 2016 ACS Census estimates, the city of Davis age category breakdown for the total population is as follows (note: 18-24 is generally the demographic standard for “college-aged”):
– 3.8% under 5 years
– 12.3% 5-17 years
– 32.8% 18-24 years
– 12.8% 25-34 years
-19.6% 35 to 54 years
– 8.6% 55 to 64 years
– 10.0% 65+ years
comparison to California:
– 6.5% under 5 years
– 17.2% 5-17 years
– 10.2% 18-24 years
– 14.7% 25-34 years
– 26.8% 35 to 54 years
– 11.6% 55 to 64 years
– 12.9% 65+ years
I’m wondering what the point of posting all these numbers are?
I often tell my kids “compare despair” since someone is always going to have more of something you want (like toys or friends) but you should be happy that there are also people that have more of something you don’t want (like pimples or hay fever).
If Rik and David would accept the fact that Davis may not have as many people of color or people in the 35-54 age range as they want, but be happy that it does not have as many car break ins or murders as other cities…
The way Rik, Davis and others seem so upset about the number of whites in town it reminds me a lot of the way people in the south were upset about people of another race in their towns in the 1950s.
If David, Rik and others work for lunch counters and drinking fountains that are only for people of color and make whites sit in the back of the Unitrans busses maybe whites will just move away.
Another option is to start a group that can terrorize white people in yoga studios or senior centers hiding their identities under sheets with eye holes.
Although I’m no fan of “development specifically for diversity”, I view this issue slightly differently. For one thing, it’s kind of a history lesson, regarding the legal restrictions that were in place in past decades (and which likely had an impact on the ability to create and pass on wealth, to future generations).
Regarding “what to do about it” (if anything), it looks like Rik is planning to submit another article regarding policies and programs which might be “keeping Davis white”. (I suspect that this is really where some folks might disagree.)
The issue itself is broader than housing. Unless there’s relative equality regarding average income across all racial groups, there will always be resulting differences in housing patterns.
To some degree, it reminds me of the concern regarding age distributions in Davis. For example, some specifically want to increase the number of families, at least in part to support schools. (In other words, “adjust the community to meet school district needs” – instead of the other way around.)
C’mon… the highlighted words are more honest. But, get where you added to “be ‘on topic'”…
How about this, instead: I’m no fan of citing “development for diversity” as an excuse for development.
I see a potential for misuse, as with the “housing insecurity” argument. (By the way, if everyone living in apartments is “housing insecure” – as some allege, why would we approve even more of them?) 🙂
So that there can be an even higher rate of housing insecurity, requiring even more apartments . . .
Alan Miller: seems like your definition differs from the actual standard definitions for housing insecurity in the housing policy literature. Here is one example. The link has many others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_insecurity_in_the_United_State
Like I care.
Another option is to not misrepresent what people are saying – especially when you post anonymously.
In fairness to Ken, I’m not seeing where he misrepresented anyone’s views with that comment. Instead, he was putting forth an analogy (albeit, a rather far-fetched/exaggerated one). In general, that seems to be his preferred method of making a point. (In other words, not to be taken literally.)
Really Ron? Did you read things carefully here?
“The way Rik, Davis and others seem so upset about the number of whites in town”
First of all, I never said I was upset about the *number* of whites in town
Second, I have pointed out that Davis is more white than other areas of the state and while I have suggested ways to alter that, have never said that I was “upset.” Rather my concern has always been the treatment of people of color.
That then goes to the main point of Rik’s series, which has been to show how we arrived at where we are today and document legal discrimination that has occurred.
Ken then makes light of a serious piece by making a series of abusrd suggestions.
So yes, at my core, I stand behind my statement that he has misrepresented my views – and more.
O.K. I just viewed “upset” differently, I guess. (Essentially as part of the “exaggeration” in the analogy.)
Please do let us know when you start storming Yoga studios and relegating whites to the back of the bus. 🙂
(I should have put the above in quotes, as the exaggeration did not originate from me. I want no part of getting blamed, for that!) But, I guess I found it somewhat amusing (while simultaneously ridiculous), in some way.
Things become pretty sensitive, regarding discussions centered on race. (Even more so than growth/development issues.) Pretty easy to get oneself in trouble.
David has posted at least 100 times that he wants more people of color in town and just today he said we need to “work for change”.
Then a couple hours later he says: “I never said I was upset about the *number* of whites in town”
I’m wondering why David and others that focus so much on the race of their neighbors will come out and say that are happy with the number of whites in Davis and if they can’t say that tell us the number or percentage of whites in town that will make them happy (and stop banging the Davis is racist drum).
Ken:
You’ve taken my comment out of context.
Keith: Davis is what it is. If you don’t like it, move!
My response: Really? Love it or leave it? As oppose to work for change?
You keep focusing on the number of whites and the number or percentage of whites in town that will make someone happy. I’ve already addressed that I have no goal in mind. My bigger focus is on problems that people of color have in this community. I have suggested elsewhere that we can create more diversity in this city incrementally through housing policies that generate more affordable (big and small “A”) hsouing options.
David, your articles on this subject have started with a recitation of numbers, and they haven’t deviated from that recitation other than your insertion of “[Davis residents] of color are treated differently [than people of white racial heritage] in this community. Vastly different.”
In the words of Emma Gonzalez, “We call BS!”
I personally have no concerns regarding looking at numbers, and what probably led to them.
One might ask, however, “how white is Roseville, Rocklin or Folsom”? And, how are people of color treated, there (e.g., compared to Davis)?
How white is Tiburon? (And – how are people of color treated, there?)
(I think I’ll refrain from asking how white people fare in African-American communities.)
But, the problem with all of this is that there are vast differences in income, between communities.
If David (and Rik) don’t have a “goal in mind” for the “proper” number of white people in town and they want to “focus is on problems that people of color have in this community.” I’m wondering my they spend more time posting about the percentage and number of whites in town than ways we can solve the problems “that people of color have in this community”. If David will list the “problems” that “people of color have in this community” im sure he will soon learn that rich people of color that went to top 25 schools who are tenured UCD professors or well respected doctors, lawyers or CPAs don’t have a lot of “problems” in Davis while poor white people who didn’t go to college and don’t have good jobs have quite a few “problems” in Davis. (I don’t know if Alan is keeping track but using “white” well over 30 times in a single post may be a new Vanguard record)…
Ken: Per the article, I think the “goal” is to review the numbers and history, and to examine policies and programs that might be “keeping Davis whiter” than it otherwise might be. I don’t know what that’s referring to, but there’s another article to come.
I don’t think that (either) David or Rik have specific numbers in mind as a goal.
A part of David’s goal seems to be related to increasing awareness/sensitivity, regarding the experiences of others.
As a side note, I suspect that I won’t personally “like” the answer regarding the possibility of changing programs and policies, if it results in even more residential density than we’re currently on track for. (Compounded by the fact that the city has already approved developments to accommodate the majority of UCD’s growth.)
David Greenwald said . . . “First of all, I never said I was upset about the *number* of whites in town.
Second, I have pointed out that Davis is more white than other areas of the state and while I have suggested ways to alter that, have never said that I was “upset.” Rather my concern has always been the treatment of people of color.”
If that subjective concern is indeed your concern, then (1) why did you trot out the objective numbers at all, and (2) why did you start your article with a recitation of those objective numbers? What relationship do you believe the numbers have to the treatment? The readers really don’t know what you believe that relationship is, because you never tell them. All you do is say,
Further, your assertion that your concern isn’t about the number(s) but rather the treatment is not consistent with your own words in the comments.
Perhaps you should have started with the video tape you have referenced. Or work with Cindy Pickett and others to use their experiences to illustrate examples of illustrate how “[Davis residents] of color are treated differently [than people of white racial heritage] in this community. Vastly different.”
You clearly stated that Davis has a bigger racism problem than other cities when you responded to Ken A’s question “David, have people of color really been telling you that they have a “BIGGER problem in Davis than other cities”? as follows.
Bottom-line, your articles and comments appear to take a page from Nathaniel Hawthorne, with the intent being to shame everyone in Davis into walking around town with a scarlet letter “R” sewn on their clothing. An alternative would be to celebrate the things we are doing right and challenge the community and its individual member to find ways to do even better.
Matt Williams said:
I haven’t seen what you describe at all in David’s articles. This sound like an overreach and a bad parody of something in The National Review on your part.
Oh wait, it isn’t: it’s just a direct lift from an actual hand-wringing National Review article bemoaning the fate of a Manhattan attorney ” letting fly a racially incendiary tirade at Spanish-speaking workers in a crowded Madison Avenue restaurant — and had the misfortune of having it filmed and widely disseminated.” in which the author tries to convince us that the real issue is not the lawyer screaming racist epithets at restaurant workers, but the people who recorded him and the people shunning him for it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-scarlet-letter-is-back-it-never-really-went-away/
Rik, what is there about David asserting that people of color have a “BIGGER problem in Davis than other cities” that isn’t “shaming”?
Are you asserting that David did not start his recent article with the following:
… and then follow that up by saying:
As to the National Review, in the 71 years of my life I can’t ever remember reading a single hard copy of the National Review, nor ever visiting the National Review’s website until two minutes ago when I clicked on your link. No parody was implied by me. You inferred that all by yourself. Are you also inferring that a similar incident to the one you describe has happened here in Davis?
Matt: OK, I can accept at face value that it’s just coincidence that you used the same formulation as that National Review article. It’s probably circulating in a number of places, just the conservative sites really trying to push a misuse of the phrase “race-baiting”.
But I don’t see where you have supported your allegation in any way that David’s writing on the subject has “the intent…to shame everyone in Davis into walking around town with a scarlet letter “R” sewn on their clothing.”
Rik said . . . “But I don’t see where you have supported your allegation in any way that David’s writing on the subject has “the intent…to shame everyone in Davis into walking around town with a scarlet letter “R” sewn on their clothing.”
Rik, here is my problem with David’s approach. He has made Davis-specific accusations, damning us individually and collectively for racist behaviors. He has indicated that those behaviors are worse and/or more frequent here in Davis than elsewhere in California and nationwide.
When Cindy Pickett shared her personal experience and opinion that call into question David’s conclusions and accusations, what have we heard from David? Crickets.
But setting all that aside, my biggest problem with David’s approach and tone (as pointed out elsewhere in this thread) is that he has focused wholly and completely on illuminating the problem without proposing any possible steps that will provide solutions to the specific problems he believes exist here in Davis in higer volume/extent than they exist statewide and nationwide.
This doesn’t seem at all inconsistent to me. The Vanguard is fine with the number of “whites” in town, The Vanguard wants more people of color in town, and The Vanguard supports most of the development in town. To be consistent with all these Vanguard support issues: build lots of residences, fill them with more people of color than not, keep all the “whites” in town, and you have more people, and a lesser percentage of “whites”. Presto! All Vanguard goals met.
Which is a worthy goal. My issue is with the approach. When you come at people in this way, they don’t listen, they hunker down and reject the message. This is the same mistake that was made attacking ‘conservatives’ and landed us a certain orange-headed narcissist as leader of the . . . #ahem# . . . “free world”.
I mentioned this as a comment to part 1 of this article, but I think it’s important to look at school age (K-12) demographics, for Davis JUSD, area districts, and California as a whole, because I think it’s a leading indicator for what the future population will look like.
Another interesting study worth taking is the percent of first generation college students enrolled at UCD over time. It has risen over the past 20 years, and I think that marks an important way in which the UCD student population is diverging from the local ‘permanent’ Davis population.
Good points… suspect that is where “evolution” will be found.
H Jackson: yes, its is important to look at school-age population. You can start doing that in the data I presented in my article. For example, while the total Hispanic/Latino population for all age groups in Davis is about 14% (see Table 1), the Hispanic/Latino population from 5 to 17 years in Davis is about 20% of the total population within that age cohort (see Table 4).
So there is a bit more diversity (especially compared to the 55+ age cohort of Hispanics/Latinos at only 4% of the total population in that cohort), but Davis still lags far behind the Hispanic/Latino representation in the 5-17 year age group in California (52%) and Woodland (61%). Relatively speaking, Hispanics/Latinos in Davis are about as underrepresented in school age population as they are in the overall population.
Rik Keller: “yes, its is important to look at school-age population. You can start doing that in the data I presented in my article.”
Thanks, and I appreciate that.
But I think annual CDE (California Dept. of Education) demographic data will give you better control on the rates of change in various groups, year by year, and it goes back to ~1993, at least.
H Jackson: we could look at school district enrollment data too. One possible issue: if there are kids going to school in the district who are not residents it won’t give us an accurate picture of the characteristics of residents and will throw off attempts to make comparisons over time.
No question about “if”, as DJUSD kids come from within the district, outside the City, and the inter-district transfers…
The only thing more bogus, to me, than the “focus” of the articles (and many comments emerging from that), is the emerging theory that the articles are motivated by “pro-growth” motivations (“conspiracy theories”)…
Whatever… just write me off as a Davis resident with ‘white privilege’, who is inherently racist (by definition that I’m “white”, and open to development… should offend almost all posting…
From one of the author’s post on the previous thread, where it was asked “do you have a problem with self-identification?”, there is a simple answer… I can self-identify as an under-represented minority… if enough of us do that in 2020, problem solved…
Appears there are some who will wring hands until the make-up of Davis meets some sort of “ideal diversity”… whatever that means… then we can focus on neighborhoods, and set an example for “Chinatown” in SF, Harlem and Spanish Harlem in NYC, “Japan Towns” in many cities…
We will know we have reached “diversity” when every neighborhood and every city in the US (and “world”) have exactly the same mix… then we can extend it to every family…
Or, we could all just follow Dr King’s dream, where we measure and treat each other based on character, regardless of race, color, creed… I share that dream, where ‘diversity’ is accepted, but not mandated… nor ‘worshipped’ as an end unto itself.
You have missed the point of the MLK quote you refer to. It was not about colorblindness. It was not a call to shun affirmative action, dismiss discussions about white privilege, make claims about “reverse racism” and call for people to “not see race.” It was a hopeful message but in the context of his strong support for affirmative action and other efforts to address racial disparities and end racial inequities.
Eric, that is BS and I think you know it.
What MLK was referring to was to rid ourselves of the soft bigotry of low expectations for blacks, and to become a color-blind nation where people are just people.
Respectfully, disagree… in the short term, you may be correct, but the long term dream I believe is as I stated.
Hard to believe that Dr King saw affirmative action to be the “new normal”, long term… that would be inconsistent with the plain meaning of his words… I say this as someone who experienced the “reverse discrimination” side of affirmative action, where a candidate for a job, with much weaker credentials, was hired because they were not white, not male… to meet a “quota”… which I think is an underlying theme in the two articles… and the posts following…
To say “white privilege” exists among the vast majority of whites, is itself, a racist notion, long term. Are you saying Dr King was advocating “no white males need apply”? In employment, I was never hired over a ‘minority’ where they had better credentials… in some cases they clearly did have better credentials… and were chosen… no harm, no foul… no resentment…
It is appearing that you believe whites are inferior in being able to be open, get along, and be color-blind… I pity you if that is your belief… it appears to be a ‘racist’ belief. Guilt?
BTW, Bakke was a jerk, but prevailed… he might be an example of “white privilege’, but that was like 40 years ago… “move on”…
Howard: I think it’s pretty clear if you read MLK’s writings where he came down on this…
“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro” to compete on a just and equal basis – he is quoted as saying.
In 1964, writing in Why We Can’t Wait: “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.”
I always figured that if we “do something” regarding income equality, it would address a large part of the lingering impacts (without singling out any specific race).
I’m not necessarily/specifically proposing what that “something” is, however. (Maybe start with the tax code, based upon income?) Of course, we pretty much know how successful that would be, these days.
(Actually, now that I think about it – some of the Trump supporters might argue that this has already been done to some degree, via the tax cut measure.)
It’s pretty clear that you have gone from the “I Have a Dream Speech” to the corpus of his works… I spoke to one… you bring other things into it, which is your ‘white privilege’ right… fine…
Ron…
Follow the “remedy” known as UBI, universal health care, as well as tax code… they are inter-related…
You’ll find support for all 3 in postings on the VG…
White privilege is real and a white kid who grew up in Presidio Heights with a Dad in the PU Club, Bohemian Club and SFGC is more “privileged” than a white kid that grew up in a Davis trailer park who has a Dad that like him never graduated from Davis High School.
I’m wondering if Eric and others will admit that white kids are not the only “privileged” people in the US and a couple black girls that grew up in the white house with parents who went to ivy league schools are more “privileged” that a couple black girls that drew up in a Davis trailer park who have parents that like him never graduated from Davis High School.
Ken A – The relevant comparison would hold income and education constant. White privilege is being able to shop at a high-end store without being followed. It’s being able to sit at a Starbucks without being harassed for not ordering. In other words, white privilege is not having to worry about being negatively treated because of your race. The term “white privilege” does not deny that Blacks can be privileged (because of income, education, etc.) It simply refers to the privileges that whites experience because of their race.
Cindy, thanks for the response
As I have mentioned before I (really) come from a family of street sweepers, janitors, and maids that didn’t go to college. I also came from a family of intelligent well read individuals and if my grandparents or parents walked in to a store people would not have any idea of their “income or education”. Over the years I’ve noticed that people of all races tend to be judged “by the way they dress” rather than the “content of their character” or “color of their skin”. Back when I worked on Willie Brown’s campaign for mayor in SF I was working downtown and still wore a suit and tie every day. One day a couple (super well dressed) African American guys I was working with took me shopping (after telling me I dressed like a “middle manager”) the guys (wearing Brioni and Hermes) were treated better than most white people at every high end Union Square store we walked in to (that was the day I bought my one and only Hermes tie). Just like Professor Higgins taught Eliza Doolittle to dress and speak differently in My Fair Lady we would teach African American kids how to dressing and speaking differently would change their lives (and avoid having creepy salespeople follow them in stores) as we were teaching them how to hit golf balls in the “First Tee” program (see link below).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U-cC3CL9L4
P.S. Like Howard (and everyone else I know) I’ll be voting for you…
Thanks, I appreciate the support!
The person that inspired me to go into my professional field was Claude Steele (Stanford professor and former Dean of the Stanford School of Education and former Provost at UC Berkeley). Dr. Steele is African-American and he wrote the book Whistling Vivaldi. In the book he talks about how he would whistle Vivaldi when he’d pass a person on a dark street so that he wouldn’t seem threatening to them. So, Steele knew that behaving “differently” was a way to avoid the negative stereotypes that could be used against him.
But how sad is that. Despite amassing multiple degrees and titles, Steele still has to whistle Vivaldi. That’s the world we live in.
P.S. I recognize that many other groups experience the effects of negative stereotypes. It isn’t limited to particular racial groups.
Posts that reference the “I have A Dream” speech but ignore the larger context of MLK’s other work (including the part about his dream turning into a “nightmare” several years later) as well as the other parts of the “Dream” speech itself are the worst kind of historical revisionism and willful ignorance.
See this speech from Chicago in 1965:
“King attributed his own growing discouragement to urban riots, the Vietnam War, indifference to black poverty and opposition to desegregation in Northern cities.” [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/12/march-on-washington-king-speech/2641841/%5D
Keep in mind that this “nightmare he references is after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See this interview from May 8, 1967, : https://www.theroot.com/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-my-dream-has-turned-into-a-1791257458
And returning to “I Have a Dream” speech itself on August 28, 1963 [https://www.vox.com/2016/1/18/10785618/martin-luther-king-dream-speech%5D
And:
You have not made any new point that I can recognize. Have you noticed that is is 2018, we just had a two-term black POTUS and the wealthiest entertainers in the nation are black and we have people of all races in all economic groups?
This is not at all like the times when MLK was thinking and writing.
There is no more material institutional segregation. There is only economic segregation. And the cause of that fits primarily within the ideological camp claiming to be for black rights.
You run out of real actors to blame, refuse to look in the mirror and double-down on the de minimis and make up new fake culprits… now it is law enforcement.
There is no accurate definition of MLK’s “I have a Dream” speech other than his point that people should not be judged on the color of their skin but who they are as individuals including how they behave as individuals. He wanted a color-blind society where all people were treated equally. Sounds good to me. But it does not sounds good to those owning different political associations because it threatens their basis for political power.
All this data is demonstrating an alarming and concerning decline in the white demographic.
This will lead to chaos as white liberals will have have to make up fake claims of racial and ethic bias to retain their identity of champions of non-whites.
Wait… that time is already here.
If MLK were alive today, he would be taken out of commission by the #MeToo rage.
He would also note that his words had been exploited by the political left to result in great harm to the very people he advocated for.
He would have celebrated the election of Barack Obama as a milestone in black achievement in this country, and maybe he would have had some additional epiphanies for what black equality really means as this Ivy-league educated liberal left office with blacks having lost economic equality and society having increased black-vs-white conflict.
He would have noted the harm of the soft bigotry of low expectations perpetrated by white social justice crusaders. He would have also noted the exploitative wealth pursued by the elite political-media class race baiters.
He likely would have been torn by the direction taken after our country’s fabulous civil rights accomplishments… that the black man continues to be segregated from others, but kept so primarily by those that claim to be his new keeper. He would ask, “why does the black man continue to require a keeper”?
Hi might very well have joined Candace Owens as a champion for the step in black civil rights… to shed themselves from the shackles of white liberal identity politics.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/06/i_blame_obama_candace_owens_rips_former_president_for_race_relations_damage.html
Mostly, off topic…
Nope. Without the continued soft bigotry of low expectation and a much different approach to racial inequality which focuses on redefining K-12 education quality and providing more economic opportunity to non-college-educated Americans, more American blacks could afford to live in Davis.
Please open up your eyes blinded by the repeated narrative of the actors responsible for continued oppression of blacks and other minorities. The Democrat party and the media feed off that narrative and have a vested interest in keeping it going.
Well that was dismissive.
Matt
“In the words of Emma Gonzalez, “We call BS!””
Respectfully I think that you are expressing unrealistic expectations. David is criticized when he does not present data to back up his opinions ( or questions) and now it would seem that you are calling BS on an article that :
1. He didn’t write
2. He has been accused of coming to conclusions he has not expressed.
regarding the Tia Will comment below: exactly.
Jeff
“All this data is demonstrating an alarming and concerning decline in the white demographic”
I fail to see anything at all alarming about a decline in the “white demographic”. If you are, as you have previously claimed, “color blind” what difference would it make if “whites” were in decline since according to you, “color” does not matter?
Back at cha Tia, so why should we also care that whites are a higher demographic in Davis than the rest of the state?
Keith O, it’s pretty simple: Because society is not actually colorblind, and these numbers are related to past and current discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities.
AND . . . . . . . . . there is something big that is not being expressed here. “Whites” are a higher demographic, because of past policies . . . . . . . AND . . . AND . . . AND WHAT ????????? We now know this — actually we knew this before all the stats, so I’m not sure what all those numbers were for. AND???
Rik Keller said . . . “Because society is not actually colorblind, and these numbers are related to past and current discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities.”
Rik, several questions based on your comment above,
(1) are you referring to Davis specifically or “society” nationally or “society” internationally?
(2) with respect to Davis, your prior article has done a very good job of illuminating past discriminatory practices, do you believe that discriminatory practices continue to this day in Davis?
(3) If your answer to (2) is “yes” what practices do you believe still exist?
(4) If your answer to (2) is “yes” what steps do you think Davis should take in order to address those still extant discriminatory practices?
Matt: the conclusion of this article talks about where this is going in Part Three. At least some of your questions will be answered then. As far as one example of continuing discriminatory practices, are you familiar with the literature on exclusionary zoning? https://tcf.org/content/facts/understanding-exclusionary-zoning-impact-concentrated-poverty/
Keith
“so why should we also care that whites are a higher demographic in Davis than the rest of the state?”
Glad you asked. My main reason is because as factual evidence from the times show, the exclusion of blacks by whites was deliberate, and based on their race. Had it just happened coincidentally or by random preference of both blacks and whites, I would have not problem with it at all.
About twenty years ago I was talking to a friend’s grandfather who was one of the first non Protestant members of the SFGC not long after the first female members were admitted. I asked if the club had any black, hispanic or Jewish members and he said no. He told me that he was not aware of a single black or hispanic person that every inquired about joining and that as a board member he hoped to get some of the Asians and Jews that wanted to join in to the club admitted as members “if he outlives a few racist WASP guys”. Just like today there are not many African Americans in Winters or Williams I would be surprised to hear if even a single African American family wanted to buy a (more expensive than most homes in the region) home on College Park Circle or Miller in the small at the time farm town or Davis near the real small at the time UC “Farm School” back when the racial restrictions were in place. It is good to know about the horrible racist deed restrictions in town (and other towns), but anyone that knows much about the history of Davis (and rural California) knows that large numbers of African Americans were looking to buy homes in farm towns prior to 1968. I was talking to one of the first female real estate agents hired by Bill Lyon in the 1950’s and she said she was selling real estate for OVER 20 years before the first African American came in to the Davis office looking to buy a home.
P.S. She also said that Bill Lyon was one of the first realtors in Northern California to hire female real estate agents and when she started selling homes 99% of the other agents were men (who wondered why she was not home with her kids)…
I see a big double standard coming from certain posters.
Without double standards, I think they would have no standards.
You completely missed the point. Read it again and place your tongue in your cheek.
Ken A – The relevant comparison would hold income and education constant. White privilege is being able to shop at a high-end store without being followed. It’s being able to sit at a Starbucks without being harassed for not ordering. In other words, white privilege is not having to worry about being negatively treated because of your race. The term “white privilege” does not deny that Blacks can be privileged (because of income, education, etc.) It simply refers to the privileges that whites experience because of their race.
Do Asians in Davis get arrested for mowing their lawn?
No, but for maybe for having a lawn… perhaps, wouldn’t surprise me… [don’t “they” all do bonsai?]…
And think it was highly questionable contact/interview/questioning re: the lawn-mowing guy ( if I got your referent right, not sure), not an arrest or even the citation given to the “snoring lady”… but yes, the guy with the lawn mower (if I got the referent right) was poorly treated. By the person who called in a “concern”, and the officer who responded to that call…
I think we need to subtract the rational / objective assessment for trust from claims of racism. Sure there are ignorant people that generalize about race, but from my perspective it seems that you too are doing this with your comments and you are by no means ignorant from my perspective. The generalization about race that are not fact based are in fact racist by their nature. Fact based comments about race are not.
Personally, I don’t have any passing thought about the race of a customer in a store. Now a 20-something male wearing bagging clothing and a hoodie will get my attention no matter what race. So will a biker-looking dude or a female that looks like she is drugged and angry.
But we seem to be caught in a chicken and egg debate here. The probability of being raped, robbed or murdered by a black person is significantly higher than by a white person. This is set of inconvenient facts for the racial social justice crowd. There have been many attempts by skilled academics in the social sciences (a discipline known to be hopelessly liberal-biased) and yet they have not been able to spin any politically-convenient excuse for this. Attempts to control for poverty have not worked. Attempts to control for levels of education have not worked.
There are all sorts of theories. I subscribe to loss of social capital in the black community that derives from, yes – a history of slavery that still lingers in the psyche of some -, crappy schools and crappy economic opportunity… both of the latter linked. Economic opportunity is the first step. Social capital derives from that as fathers can provide for their families with legal work and without as much drug use, and the intact family unit develops children with fewer behavior problems. The social order shifts from victim-based to ownership based… were members of the community begin to feel like they have a stake in their community and ownership of their community instead of feeling like someone else owns it.
This is a highly charged topic because those boiling with anger about disparity in racial outcomes see this “blacks are more prone to crime” as a dead-end in being forced to accept the outcomes. I don’t see it that way. I say unless we can be intellectually honest about the facts we will never hit on solutions.
Jeff M said . . . “The probability of being raped, robbed or murdered by a black person is significantly higher than by a white person.”
Jeff, I believe you paint with too broad a brush in your statement above. I suspect that your statement is not true for white women in most age categories. One of my good friends was on the Dallas Crime Commission back when I lived in Dallas. He was also the CEO of Brinks Home Security. At the time, Dallas was experiencing a huge increase in crime rates. I asked Peter about that and he told me that he had just been part of a presentation where the crime statistics were sliced and diced. He showed me how for me, a white male, and my wife a white female, the chances of being victim of a crime were no higher now than they had ever been, and that the vast majority of the huge increase in the crime rate was in crimes where both the victim and the perpetrator were non-white … and more often than not, non-female.
Yes Jeff… both the accused East area rapist and accused Norcal rapists are “of color”… that color being “white”…
Pretty sure most personal crime is perpetrated on folk, by folk of their same ethnic background… a black is most likely to be killed by a black, a white raped by a white, little (%-age wise) across racial/ethnic backgrounds… but when it happens, “sells” in print and social media… ex., National Enquirer, Faux (sorry, Fox) News, other tabloids and inflammatory “news” sources…
RK likes statistics. I used my fingers and counted 28 instances of the word “white” in this article.
I am. Not quite 30, maybe in Part III
It looks like Alan forgot to count the word white in the data tables in the article (that will push it over 30 for a possible Vanguard record)…
Alan Miller: you haven’t completed your analysis.
What conclusion should we draw from the fact that Alan Miller for some reason doesn’t like the use of the official U.S. governmental agency names to tabulate racial/ethnic categories in an article discussing the tabulation of racial/ethnic categories?
And what conclusion should we draw that from the fact that Alan Miller also provided an incomplete count only of the word “white,” and he completely ignored references to persons of color?
What conclusion should we draw that the only MLK, Jr. quote that Alan Miller refers to in these conversations is the one about the “dream,” but he never mentions how MLK said that had turned into “nightmare” within a couple of years?
I can’t speak to the conclusions other people will draw. Speaking for myself, I was referring to the way “white” is used, as a subtle jab.
I’m sorry, did I miss a “white”? I left out the title and reference at the bottom and counted twice, like I was taught in my majority-white suburban elementary school. And to answer your question, I’m obviously a racist — (in some people’s eyes).
I’ll acknowledge the nightmare — change is a #$%&*!
Thread cleanup:
91019 comments deleted.(I pasted your response down here near Keith’s comment, since they both touch on the same subject – the one that always captures my interest, at least.)
Seems to me that Rik and David do not necessarily see “eye-to-eye” regarding growth/development (as well as Affordable housing) issues. I recall some articles from Rik that really went after David’s conclusions, regarding these issues.
But, both share some common interests regarding racial concerns.
(My impression, at least.)
I’m sitting on pins and needles waiting for Part III – aren’t we all? My guess KO, is that the answer to your question is going to be (wait for it): a call for communism in Davis!
You didn’t read the last two paragraphs of this article? I already told everybody what is going to be in Part 3.
I feel asleep after the 7th data table. Thankfully, as had I continued reading I may have died of boredom.
Alan: You “fell asleep” yet you stayed awake long enough to supposedly count all the times the word “white” appeared in the article all the way to the end? Why did your count not include the times the word appeared in the tables? Why didn’t you count the number of times the words for other racial/ethnic groups were used? Do you also post comments on other articles discussing Census data on race/ethnicity? Does the 100 times that the word “white” is used in this article offend you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
Judging by the nature of a lot of the comments on here, it seems to me that some folks believe that Davis is being (inaccurately) labeled as essentially “racist” (for lack of a better description). (In other words, not necessarily for the reason that you’re putting forth.)
(I’m not putting forth a personal opinion via this observation.)
Exactly Ron, I believe that even more people are tired of the continual portrayal of Davis being labelled as racist when that is absolutely false. So Ron, since you responded to a comment that is no longer posted obviously you saw David and my exchange this morning. What did you think?
I think that people of color (sometimes) feel uncomfortable in communities dominated by “white” people. I think they are looked at “askance” at times, including by the police.
In general, I think they’re in far less physical danger than if a white person ventured into an African-American community. (But, white people generally avoid doing so.)
Since communities that are “white” generally offer more economic opportunity (and white people are still the dominant majority at this point – especially regarding economic activity), this puts people of color (specifically African-Americans) at a disadvantage.