Los Angeles Times - 25.08.2019

LATIMES.COM/OPINION S SUNDAY, AUGUST 25, 2019A

OPINION

EDITORIALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO WRITE TO US Please send letters to [email protected]. For submission guidelines, see latimes.com/letters or call 1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

W

ith each passing week, it
seems there is another at-
tempt by the Trump ad-
ministration to whittle
down someone’s civil
rights protections.
The latest effort is a proposed rule from
the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment that would make it considerably
harder — if not impossible — to enforce fair
housing laws designed to protect vulnerable
groups from covert or unintentional dis-
crimination.
HUD wants to weaken an Obama-era
regulation governing “disparate impact”
lawsuits, which use housing statistics to
demonstrate that a neutral-sounding policy
or method employed by a landlord, bank, in-
surer or local government ends up discrimi-
nating against racial minorities, seniors, the
disabled or other protected groups. While
conservatives have long disputed such
claims, a divided Supreme Court ruled in
2015 that they were valid as long as plaintiffs
could show that the discriminatory results
were caused by the defendant’s policies,
even if there was no intent to discriminate.
HUD Secretary Ben Carson said the pro-
posed rule is intended to “increase legal
clarity” by setting new guidelines for how to
prove a disparate impact claim in the wake
of the 2015 ruling. But civil rights advocates
say the proposal could have far-reaching ef-
fects across the housing industry, whose
history is fraught with segregation and dis-
crimination that continue to this day, often
in insidious ways.
The new rule could make it harder to
challenge cities that exacerbate segregation
with exclusionary zoning rules that limit the
supply of affordable housing; to go after
banks whose underwriting standards result
in higher fees and interest rates for minority
home buyers; and to crack down on land-
lords who rely on algorithm-driven back-
ground checks that cause families, immi-
grants or racial minorities to be excluded.
The Obama administration’s rule put
the responsibility on landlords, lenders, in-
surance companies and others in the hous-
ing industry to show that policies with dis-
parate outcomes had a valid business rea-
son, and that there was no less discrimi-
natory way to achieve the same goal. The

result, advocates said, was that companies had an incentive to be proactive in rooting out policies that might unintentionally hurt certain groups. The Trump administration proposal would eliminate that incentive and essen- tially free companies to ignore the impact of their policies. The proposed rule would shift the burden of proof to the victims of discrimination, who would pretty much have to prove that the policy is discriminatory and unnecessary before they had the chance to gather evidence from the companies. That sets an impossibly high bar. Even more worrisome, HUD would give lenders and landlords a loophole to escape responsibility for discrimination if they make decisions based on a third-party vendor’s data analysis. More and more aspects of the housing industry rely on algorithmic- based systems for credit scoring, underwriting and risk-based pricing. The HUD proposal would let companies dismiss accusa- tions of disparate impact if they make their decisions to lend, rent or insure customers based on an industry-standard model or a third-party vendor’s input. There’s ample evidence that those “fair” models and algorithms can have discriminatory effects. The models are often based on historical data or patterns that have discrimination baked in, which can perpetuate bias. Even HUD has recognized the trou- bling power of the algorithm when the agency sued Facebook earlier this year, say- ing the company’s machine learning and prediction techniques “function just like an advertiser who intentionally targets or ex- cludes users based on their protected class.” The proposed disparate impact rule fits into a larger pattern of Trump administration efforts to dismantle civil rights protections in the name of streamlining regulations and providing “certainty” for businesses and investors. Indeed, HUD General Counsel J. Paul Compton Jr. told reporters that the new disparate impact rule would free up businesses to “innovate and take risks without the fear they will be second- guessed through statistics down the line.” But what if the statistics are right? What if a company’s innovation discriminates against and hurts vulnerable people who are protected under fair housing laws? Such policies shouldbe second-guessed — and more important, fixed. The Trump administration’s proposal, however, is designed to make it harder to second-guess decisions to provide or deny housing. And in many cases, it could close off the opportunity for advocates to even ask the question.

An open door to housing bias

The Trump administration seeks

to deter lawsuits against covert or

unintentional discrimination.

G

iven Congress’ inability to
forge a consensus on how to
counter gun violence, states
have been left to go at it alone.
That’s worked better in some
places than others. California, for instance,
has some of the strongest gun control laws
in the country, and legislators continue to
shore up weak points that emerge in the
complicated and at times confusing matrix
of statutes and regulations.
But those efforts, by definition, stop at
the state borders, and we saw that play out
in tragic ways last month. Santino William
Legan, who had lived in both Gilroy and re-
mote Walker Lake, Nev., bought a combat-
style rifle in Nevada that he would not have
been able to legally buy and own in Califor-
nia, then used it less than three weeks later
to attack the Gilroy Garlic Festival, killing
three people and injuring 13.
Sadly, the presence of guns legally
bought elsewhere then ferried to California
is not that unusual. In fact, about a third of
firearms collected by California police —
most of them found at crime scenes, taken
from criminals or discovered abandoned —
that the federal government could trace had
been last sold by a dealer outside of Califor-
nia. Nearly 2,200 were sold in Arizona, and
1,554 were sold in Nevada.
Further, a 2017 UC Berkeley study found
that violent crime increased for two weeks in
parts of California within easy drive of gun
shows in Nevada, where firearms can be
sold without a background check (by con-
trast, nearly all transfers in California must
involve a background check). And it’s not
just here. Six out of 10 guns confiscated in
connection with crimes in Chicago, which
has strict gun laws, come from out of state.
In New York City, 9 of 10 guns do so.
Some members of the California state
Legislature hope to address at least some of
the problems. More than two dozen legisla-
tors signed a letter to their counterparts in
Nevada asking for a meeting this fall to dis-
cuss common-sense policies Nevada might
enact that could reduce public safety risks
here. In particular, the state lawmakers sug-
gested banning combat-style firearms and

large-capacity magazines and barring people under age 21 from buying firearms — laws already on the books in California. We must note that as soon as Legan crossed into California with his combat- style rifles and magazines with capacities of 40 and 75 rounds, he broke California law. In fact, one of the routine arguments the gun lobby makes is that adopting gun controls will do nothing to stop criminals from having guns. But by that logic, we don’t need laws against bank robbery, either, given that people will rob banks anyway. Gun laws do make a difference. Studies have shown a dis- tinct correlation between rates of gun violence, including suicides, and the relative strength of gun laws controlling access to firearms. Gun laws work. With Democrats controlling Nevada’s Legislature and governorship, and with emotions still raw from the 2017 massacre of 58 people at a country music concert near Las Vegas’ Mandalay Bay hotel, the state has shown a new openness to gun control. This year it has enacted laws allowing families to petition a judge to seize firearms from relatives they believe pose a risk to themselves or others, banning bump stocks (also the subject of a recent federal ban) that allow a gunman to effectively make a semiautomatic rifle fire automatically, and requiring firearms to be stored safely and out of the reach of children. Will Nevada get even tougher? Who knows? But it certainly doesn’t hurt to ask. In fact, California policymakers should expand their outreach to other neighboring states and try to create something of a regional compact to put common-sense gun laws in place throughout the West. Resist- ance will be stiff in gun-friendly states like Arizona and Utah, to be sure, but no political battle can be won if it never gets started. In the void left by a barely functioning Congress and a retrograde administration, California has already led the nation in other crucial areas, including climate change, motor vehicle mileage standards and criminal justice reform. It should try to do so with sensible gun laws as well. Even if the effort fails, it is a step worth taking.

A regional approach to guns

After landing on Omaha Beach in France, my father fought on through the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of the Rhineland with the 75th Infantry Division to help defeat the Nazis. No one was ever de- luded into believing that such fascism was elimi- nated forever. It is certain, though, that no one ever imagined a resurgence of this scourge within our own borders among some of our youth. That school officials at Pacifica High sought to hide this incident to avoid bad publicity should be roundly condemned, and all involved must be held to account. Anything less only dishonors the sacri- fices of my father and millions more like him. Kurt I. Muller Rancho Palos Verdes

::

Whenever stories ap- pear about a group waving swastikas, giving the Nazi salute or waving a Confed- erate flag, it brings to mind the fact that those people are losers because they are following losers. Nazi Germany had a formidable army, navy and air force as well as functioning rocketry and jet propulsion. Still, it was beaten down to the last man. The Confederate states had some of West Point’s best and a functioning army that struck the first blow, yet they were soundly defeated. As for people who wave swastikas and Confederate flags, the only thing I can say to them is that they are following losers. Try following winners. Clyde Doyle Los Angeles

A border crisis

with no easy fix

Re “More cruelty toward migrants,” editorial, Aug. 22

The L.A. Times editorial decrying President Trump’s plan to detain children with their parents indefinitely simplifies very complex problems. The Times is right that the immigration court system is overwhelmed — but overwhelmed is an understatement. We have upward of 100,000 new migrants a month coming into the country. The num- bers are so staggering that to expand the court system to handle this is a massive undertaking. The Times would let these people go and hope they come back maybe years later to the immigration courts. This opens another vicious partisan political debate, which the editorial ignores com- pletely. Robert Newman West Hills

::

Trump has separated children from their parents and imprisoned migrants in substandard conditions. His approach is cruel, has

resulted in deaths and constitutes a human rights violation. Instead, he should help create solutions that do not involved punishing children who are fleeing unbearable conditions back in their home countries. Initiating programs that partner with Central American countries with a goal of improving quality of life and working with Re- publicans and Democrats in Congress to pass immigration legislation that is fair and efficient are two long-term solutions. But these solutions would involve a lot of work, positive leadership and empathy from President Trump, characteristics that he has not demon- strated. Instead, he chooses cruelty. Joan Horn Carlsbad

‘I am not a

political prop’

Re “Trump’s slur attacks Jews and U.S. ideals,” Opinion, Aug. 22

I am an American Jew. I may be a Democrat. I may be a Republican. I may be an independent. I am a proud American and a veteran, and I am neither ignorant nor disloyal. I love what America stands for, its ideals and its aspirations, its openness and its promise. I am com- mitted to ensuring that this country lives up to these ideals. I am the descendant of immigrants and see Ameri- ca as a nation of immigrants. I care about Israel and am dedicated to pro- tecting the Jewish state from those who would do it harm from outside or inside. I am not an Israeli citizen. I am an American citizen. I am concerned about growing anti-Semi- tism but do not want any- one, from either party, to politicize it and use it as a wedge issue. I am not a political prop. I am an American Jew. Victor Moss Beverly Hills

::

Lev Golinkin rightly notes that false accusa- tions of dual loyalty have incited attacks against Jews throughout history. However, President Trump did not accuse Jews of disloyalty to America, which is the meaning of the classic anti-Semitic trope. He is suggesting that Jew- ish Americans should not vote against their self- interest or against the interests of the only Jewish nation-state. The wave of criticism regarding his comment is ironic in a national culture that promotes the impor- tance of ethnicity and self- interest. The president’s opponents routinely ap- peal to other minority citizens based on their ethnicity, gender and sexu- al orientation. The truly dangerous slurs against Jews and Israel are being spread by

proponents of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. Comments such as Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-Minn.) “it’s the Ben- jamins” is classic fearmon- gering regarding Jewish power. I have no interest in defending this president, but I am loath to stay silent in the face of yet another big lie involving the Jews. Lana Melman Los Angeles

::

I would like to remind the president that, as a Jew, it would be disloyal for me to not vote for Demo- crats in the next election. Trump’s words are despotic in a country where democracy reigns, where we can vote for whomever we want and where many of us will vote to retire this president for all the alienation he has caused worldwide. Bunny Landis Oceanside

An appreciation

for a reporter

Re “Pioneering L.A. Times reporter,” obituary, Aug. 19

I was shocked and saddened to read of former L.A. Times reporter K. Connie Kang’s death. She’s been an icon in our household for years. Her byline was always something to look forward to. Her sure prose and insight into our culture benefited not only the Korean American community but also all of her read- ers in Los Angeles. Who can forget her trip to the local Korean market with host Huell Howser in 1996? She played the gra- cious host, explaining everything from the difference between Korean sesame seeds and those from elsewhere (“they’re more tasty,” she said with a laugh) to why Koreans commonly forego the cus- tomary “sorry” or “pardon” if accidentally bumped into (it’s understood to be unintentional, so no harm, no foul), to even why no dignified Korean man would ever say “I love you.” In the Korean language, we often shun the word “my” or “mine” for the larger “our.” Koreans would never say “my community,” but “our community,” as we believe these aren’t things to be owned but shared. We, the Korean Ameri- can community, are heart- broken. Lawrence Kim Irvine

Santa Monica’s

lifeline airport

Re “A flying nuisance,” letters, Aug. 23

Santa Monica City Councilman Kevin Mc- Keown omits key facts in his letter casting his city’s small airport as a nuisance that rightly faces imminent closure. First, Santa Monica Airport is a “critical and essential” piece of city infrastructure, according to Santa Monica’s own “All Hazards Mitigation Plan,” a blueprint for disaster (read: earthquake or tsu- nami) recovery. Second, the city’s econ- omic impact report of 201 1 tabulated a $274-million value of Santa Monica Airport to the economy. As to being an “out- moded remnant,” having an on-ramp to the skies will be critical for the next- generation of quiet, clean, electric-powered aircraft that will revolutionize our skies, as electric-powered autos and trucks are revo- lutionizing our city streets and highways. Santa Moni- ca Airport is a key part of our local and regional infrastructure. David J. Hopkins Santa Monica The writer is spokes- man for the Santa Monica Airport Assn.

Witnessing hate

Re “Diversity and hate in O.C.,” Aug. 22

Do not punish the ignorant students of Pacifica High School in Garden Grove who were filmed allegedly giving the Nazi salute and singing a Nazi anthem at an off-campus event. Do not reason with them. Do not lecture them with words. Put these students in a room, lower the lights and make them watch films of the liberation of the Nazi death camps at the end of World War II. If that does not soften their hearts, God have mercy on us all. Frank Knecht Mar Vista

Al SeibLos Angeles Times PACIFICA HIGHofficials knew of the Nazi salute video in March but kept it quiet for months.

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine MANAGINGEDITOR Scott Kraft SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR Kimi Yoshino DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton, Julia Turner ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich, Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez Opinion Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR

Los Angeles Times - 25.08.2019

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources