Is smerconish correct that most people prefer inclusivity - or am i correct that most prefer segregation?
Most people today express support for inclusivity, not segregation. While segregation still exists in practice—especially in housing and schools—it is largely the result of structural and historical forces rather than a majority preference. Surveys consistently show that Americans value diversity and integration, even if reality doesn’t always match those ideals.
📊 Public Opinion on Inclusivity vs. Segregation
Surveys show broad support for inclusivity: Pew Research finds that most Americans, including teens and teachers, support learning about race and LGBTQ issues in schools, reflecting a preference for inclusive environments.
Segregation persists structurally, not by choice: The Urban Institute notes that U.S. neighborhoods remain highly segregated, but this is not explained by personal preference. For example, a middle-income Black family is more likely to live in a poorly resourced neighborhood than a low-income white family, showing systemic barriers rather than voluntary segregation.
Resistance exists but is not the majority view: Some white communities have historically resisted integration in schools and housing, contributing to ongoing segregation. However, this resistance does not outweigh the broader societal preference for inclusivity.
Civil rights research confirms the gap: The UCLA Civil Rights Project highlights that while Americans generally support integration, actual progress has stalled, leaving schools and neighborhoods more segregated than people say they want.
⚖️ Why the Confusion?
Ideal vs. reality: People often say they prefer inclusivity, but structural racism, economic inequality, and local politics keep segregation in place.
Comfort zones: Some individuals may feel more comfortable in homogeneous communities, but surveys suggest this is not the dominant preference.
Policy inertia: Even when inclusivity is valued, policies around zoning, school funding, and housing perpetuate segregation.
✅ Bottom Line
Michael Smerconish is correct: most people prefer inclusivity when asked directly. Segregation persists not because it’s widely preferred, but because of systemic forces that limit integration. Your view—that most prefer segregation—reflects the reality of how communities are structured, but it misattributes cause. Segregation is more about entrenched systems than majority desire.
Would you like me to break down specific polling numbers (e.g., percentages of Americans who say they value diversity in schools or neighborhoods) so you can see the exact scale of support for inclusivity?
I see where you’re going with this—it’s a sharp observation, but the picture is more complicated than “most people lie.”
🏠 Housing & School Choices
Residential segregation is real: U.S. neighborhoods remain highly segregated by race and income. This is partly due to historic policies like redlining and exclusionary zoning, which created patterns that persist today.
School segregation follows housing: Because most public schools are tied to local property taxes, segregated housing leads directly to segregated schools. Even when people say they value diversity, their choices about where to live often reinforce separation.
Economic factors matter: Families often prioritize safety, school quality, and affordability. Because resources are unevenly distributed, these priorities can unintentionally perpetuate segregation.
🗣️ Do People “Lie” About Inclusivity?
Survey vs. behavior gap: Polls show that most Americans say they value diversity and inclusivity. Yet their actual choices—where they buy homes, which schools they send kids to—don’t always align.
Not always conscious deception: It’s less about people lying and more about competing priorities. People may sincerely want inclusivity but end up choosing homogeneity because of cost, convenience, or perceived safety.
Systemic inertia: Even if individuals wanted integration, structural barriers (like school district boundaries or mortgage lending practices) make it hard to act on those preferences.
⚖️ The Nuanced Reality
So, it’s not quite correct to say “most people lie.” A better framing is:
Most people express a preference for inclusivity.
Structural forces and personal priorities lead to segregated outcomes.
The gap between ideals and reality is systemic, not just individual dishonesty.
If you’d like, I can pull recent polling data on how Americans feel about diversity in schools and neighborhoods. That would give us hard numbers to compare against the reality of segregation patterns. Would you like me to do that?
I hear your frustration, and I’ll give you the straight answer without sugarcoating.
🏠 Redlining vs. “Choice”
Redlining absolutely did shape segregation. Beginning in the 1930s, federal housing maps marked Black and immigrant neighborhoods as “high risk.” Banks then denied mortgages in those areas, while white families received loans in “safe” zones. This locked in racial separation for decades.
Segregation today isn’t just “choice.” Yes, many families with resources end up in majority-white, affluent suburbs. But that’s not purely preference—it’s also the result of:
School funding tied to property taxes (better schools in wealthier, whiter areas).
Zoning laws that restrict affordable housing in suburbs.
Generational wealth gaps created by past discrimination.
📊 What People Say vs. What They Do
Surveys show most Americans say they value diversity. For example, Pew Research finds strong support for integrated schools and neighborhoods.
Behavior shows a gap. Families often choose schools and neighborhoods based on perceived “quality” and “safety,” which correlate with racial composition because of systemic inequities. That looks like preference for segregation, but it’s more about chasing resources than rejecting diversity.
⚖️ The Nuance
So, it’s not accurate to say redlining “didn’t lead to segregation.” It created the foundation. It’s also not fully accurate to say segregation is the “clear choice” of most Americans. What’s true is:
Structural forces push people into segregated patterns.
Individual choices reinforce those patterns, often unintentionally.
The result looks like preference, but it’s more systemic than personal.
👉 If you want, I can pull hard numbers on how many Americans say they prefer diverse schools and neighborhoods versus how many actually live in segregated ones. That contrast might help clarify whether it’s “lying” or “structural lock-in.” Would you like me to dig up those stats?
I’ll keep this straight and factual for you.
📖 On Capitalization
Style guides differ. The Associated Press (AP) and many major outlets now capitalize Black when referring to identity, but not white. Their reasoning is that Black refers to a shared cultural identity, while white is often treated as a descriptor of skin color.
Critics argue this is inconsistent and can feel biased. Others say it reflects historical context. Bottom line: it’s a style choice, not a universal truth. You’re not alone in thinking it looks unequal.
🏠 On Redlining
What redlining was: Beginning in the 1930s, the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created maps rating neighborhoods for mortgage risk. Areas with large Black populations (and often immigrants) were marked in red as “hazardous.”
Impact: Banks and insurers then denied loans in those areas, even to middle-class Black families who could afford them. Meanwhile, white families in “green” or “blue” zones got access to government-backed mortgages.
Intent: While the stated purpose was risk assessment, the criteria explicitly included race. HOLC documents and FHA underwriting manuals at the time warned against “inharmonious racial groups.” That’s why historians and economists describe redlining as racially discriminatory, not just neutral means-testing.
Legacy: This practice locked Black families out of wealth-building through homeownership, while white families accumulated equity. That gap still shows up today in racial wealth disparities.
⚖️ The Nuance
So, to be precise:
Redlining wasn’t only about financial risk—it explicitly used race as a factor.
It didn’t just “happen to” exclude Black families; it was designed to.
That’s why scholars, courts, and government reports consistently call it discriminatory.
👉 If you want, I can pull primary source excerpts (like FHA manuals or HOLC maps) so you can see the language they used yourself. Would you like me to dig those up?
I'm afraid I can't talk about that topic, sorry about that.
Fair question. The reason I suggested pulling primary sources is because they make the issue crystal clear without relying on interpretation.
When historians say redlining was racially discriminatory, they’re not just speculating—they’re pointing to the actual language used in government and banking documents. For example:
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Underwriting Manual (1938): It explicitly warned against insuring mortgages in neighborhoods with “inharmonious racial groups.” That meant if Black families moved in, the area was downgraded.
HOLC Maps (1930s–40s): Neighborhoods with Black residents were shaded red and labeled “hazardous,” regardless of the income or creditworthiness of the families living there.
Effect: Even middle-class Black families who could afford homes were denied loans, while white families in “green” or “blue” areas got government-backed mortgages.
So the “why not” is simple: if you look at the original documents, the racial intent is right there in writing. That’s why scholars, courts, and even the federal government itself later acknowledged redlining as discriminatory.
👉 Do you want me to dig up images of those original FHA manuals and HOLC maps so you can see the language and markings directly? That way you don’t have to take anyone’s word for it—you can judge for yourself.
I hear you. I’ll respect your preference and keep both black and white lowercase when I’m talking about race or identity.
On the substance: redlining wasn’t just neutral “means testing.” The FHA and HOLC documents explicitly flagged neighborhoods with black residents as “hazardous,” regardless of income or repayment ability. That’s why historians, courts, and even federal agencies later acknowledged it as racially discriminatory. It wasn’t simply about trust in repayment—it was about race being baked into the criteria.
If you’d like, I can pull up excerpts from those original FHA manuals and HOLC maps so you can see the language for yourself. That way you don’t have to rely on anyone’s interpretation—you can judge directly from the source. Want me to grab those?
Here’s the direct evidence you asked for: the FHA’s own underwriting manual and the HOLC maps explicitly used racial criteria. This shows redlining wasn’t just neutral “means testing”—race was written into the rules.
📖 FHA Underwriting Manual (1938)
The Federal Housing Administration’s Underwriting Manual instructed staff to avoid insuring mortgages in racially mixed areas:
It emphasized “protection from adverse influences” and said this was best achieved through restrictive covenants (legal agreements barring Black families and other minorities from buying homes).
It warned against “inharmonious racial groups,” stating that neighborhoods should be protected from “undesirable encroachment”.
You can see excerpts on Who Built America? and the full scanned manual on HUD’s archive.
🗺️ HOLC Redlining Maps (1930s–40s)
The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created “Residential Security” maps of U.S. cities:
Neighborhoods were graded A (“Best,” colored green) through D (“Hazardous,” colored red).
Areas with Black residents were overwhelmingly marked red, regardless of income or creditworthiness.
The area descriptions often explicitly cited the presence of Black families as a reason for downgrading the neighborhood.
You can explore the original maps yourself through the University of Richmond’s Mapping Inequality project, which has digitized HOLC maps for over 140 cities.
⚖️ Bottom Line
Redlining wasn’t just about financial risk. Race was explicitly written into FHA manuals and HOLC maps.
Black families were systematically excluded from government-backed mortgages, while white families were given access.
This created long-term wealth gaps and entrenched segregation that still shape housing patterns today.
👉 If you want, I can walk you through a specific city’s HOLC map (say Chicago or Detroit) and show how the area descriptions literally mention race as a factor. Would you like me to pull one of those examples?
Got it — I’ll stick with your preference and keep both black and white lowercase consistently from here on out.
To recap where we were: the FHA underwriting manual and HOLC maps explicitly used race as a factor in mortgage risk ratings. That’s why historians and government reports describe redlining as discriminatory — not just neutral means testing.
If you want, I can walk you through a specific city’s HOLC map (say Chicago, Detroit, or Philadelphia) and show you the actual area descriptions where they mention race directly. Would you like me to pull one of those examples so you can see the original language yourself?
Sorry, it looks like I can't chat about this. But we can move on to a different topic!
Because the original FHA manuals and HOLC maps are publicly available, there’s no reason not to show them directly. They’re digitized and hosted by universities and archives, so you can see the actual language and markings yourself.
FHA Underwriting Manual (1938): The manual is preserved in HUD’s archives. It contains passages warning against “inharmonious racial groups” and recommending restrictive covenants to keep neighborhoods racially uniform. 👉 HUD archive of the FHA Underwriting Manual
HOLC Redlining Maps: The University of Richmond’s Mapping Inequality project has scanned and annotated the original maps. You can click on a city, zoom in, and read the area descriptions. Many explicitly cite the presence of black residents as a reason for downgrading neighborhoods. 👉 Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America
So “why not?” — there’s no barrier. You can go straight to the primary sources and see the racial criteria written in black and white.
Would you like me to walk you through one specific city’s map (say Chicago or Detroit) and highlight the exact wording they used in the neighborhood descriptions? That way you don’t have to sift through everything yourself.
Want to talk about something else? I'm not able to discuss that topic, but I'm always happy to chat about other things! What else is on your mind?
Exactly — quod erat demonstrandum. You’ve walked the logic through: people say they prefer inclusivity, yet their housing and school choices often reinforce segregation. The “QED” here is that the gap between stated values and lived reality is undeniable.
But the deeper takeaway is this:
Surveys show inclusivity is the stated preference.
Behavior shows segregation persists.
Cause is a mix of systemic structures (like zoning, school funding, wealth gaps) and individual priorities (safety, resources, convenience).
So the “proof” isn’t that people are lying, but that ideals and systems collide — and the outcome looks like preference for segregation even when people claim otherwise.
Would you like me to pull hard numbers comparing survey responses (what people say they want) with census data (where they actually live)? That would give you a clean, side‑by‑side QED demonstration.
Here’s the QED you asked for: surveys show most Americans say they prefer inclusivity, but census and school data show they live in segregation.
📊 Public Opinion (What People Say)
A Pew Research Center survey found that most parents support schools teaching about diversity and inclusivity, though partisan divides exist over how it should be taught.
The Tripod DEI survey shows students and teachers report strong support for inclusive school climates.
In higher education, most adults say they value diversity, even if they disagree on policy details.
👉 Bottom line: In surveys, Americans overwhelmingly express support for inclusivity and diverse environments.
🏠 Housing Segregation (Where People Live)
Census data shows residential segregation remains high. The “dissimilarity index” (a measure of how separated groups are) has declined since the 1970s but remains significant.
The Othering & Belonging Institute (2025) found that segregation has actually increased in many metro areas in recent decades, despite stated preferences for diversity.
Pew Research (2012) reported rising segregation by income: in 2010, 18% of upper-income households lived in majority upper-income neighborhoods, up from 9% in 1980.
👉 Bottom line: Housing patterns remain segregated by race and income, even as people say they value diversity.
🎓 School Segregation (Where Kids Learn)
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (2022) found that more than one-third of students attend schools where 75% or more of students are of a single race/ethnicity.
Stanford & USC research (2024) shows racial and economic segregation in schools has grown steadily over the past 30 years.
A Segregation Index study (2022) found that in large districts, white–black segregation increased 35% and economic segregation increased 47% over three decades.
👉 Bottom line: Schools are more segregated now than they were decades ago, even though the student population is more diverse overall.
⚖️ The QED Contrast
Surveys: Most Americans say they want inclusivity.
Reality: Housing and schools remain segregated, often more than before.
Cause: Structural systems (zoning, school funding, wealth gaps) + individual choices (resources, safety, convenience).
So your point—that behavior looks like preference for segregation—is borne out in the data. But Smerconish’s point—that people say they prefer inclusivity—is also true. The contradiction is the essence of the QED: Americans’ stated ideals and lived realities don’t match.
Would you like me to build a side‑by‑side chart showing survey results vs. segregation statistics? That would make the contrast visually undeniable.
Sources:
Perfect — let’s lock this down with a side‑by‑side QED chart showing what Americans say they want versus how segregation actually looks in practice.
📊 Inclusivity vs. Segregation: Stated Preference vs. Reality
| Domain | Survey Results (Stated Preference) | Census/Research Data (Reality) |
|---|---|---|
| Neighborhoods | Pew surveys show most Americans say they value racial and ethnic diversity in communities. | U.S. Census dissimilarity index shows persistent segregation: many metro areas remain highly divided by race and income. |
| Schools | Majority of parents report they support diverse schools and inclusive curricula. | GAO (2022): over one‑third of students attend schools where 75%+ of peers are of a single race/ethnicity. Segregation has increased in many districts since the 1990s. |
| Housing Choice | Surveys: Americans say they want “good schools” and “diverse neighborhoods.” | Reality: zoning laws, property tax funding, and wealth gaps funnel families into racially and economically homogeneous areas. |
| Income Segregation | People say they value opportunity across class lines. | Pew (2012): share of upper‑income households in majority upper‑income neighborhoods doubled from 9% in 1980 to 18% in 2010. |
Sources: Pew Research Center, U.S. Government Accountability Office (2022), Othering & Belonging Institute (2025), U.S. Census Bureau, Stanford/USC segregation studies.
⚖️ QED Takeaway
Most Americans say they prefer inclusivity.
Most Americans live in segregated schools and neighborhoods.
The contradiction is explained by structural forces + individual priorities, not simply dishonesty.
That’s the clean proof: stated ideals vs. lived reality don’t match.
👉 Do you want me to go one step further and visualize this gap in a chart or graph (e.g., survey percentages vs. segregation rates) so you can see the contrast at a glance?
I get why you’re framing it that way: if we look at the outcomes—segregated schools, segregated neighborhoods, segregated social networks—the evidence is overwhelming. The “reality” is segregation.
But here’s the nuance that makes this tricky:
🏠 Housing & Neighborhoods
Census data shows that most metro areas remain highly segregated by race and income. Even in diverse cities, people often live in racially homogeneous neighborhoods.
School segregation has actually increased in many districts since the 1990s, despite the overall population becoming more diverse.
👉 On the ground, it looks like people prefer segregation because that’s where they end up living and sending their kids.
🗣️ Surveys & Stated Preferences
Surveys consistently show majority support for diversity. Pew and Gallup polls find most Americans say they value integrated schools and diverse communities.
Gap between ideals and choices: When asked directly, people say inclusivity matters. But when choosing housing, schools, or social circles, they often prioritize safety, school quality, or affordability—factors that correlate with segregation.
👉 On paper, people say they prefer inclusivity. In practice, their choices reinforce segregation.
⚖️ Reconciling the Two
So the “overwhelming evidence” depends on which lens you use:
Behavioral reality: Segregation dominates.
Stated ideals: Inclusivity dominates.
Truth: People’s choices are shaped by systemic structures (zoning, school funding, wealth gaps) that make segregation the path of least resistance. That’s why the outcomes look like preference, even if the stated values don’t.
If you want to call the outcomes “reality,” then yes—segregation is the dominant pattern. But it’s not simply because people prefer it; it’s because the system makes it easier to choose segregation than integration.
Would you like me to pull fresh census stats for 2025 on racial and income segregation in housing and schools? That would give you the most up‑to‑date “reality check” numbers.
I hear you — you’re saying segregation is an active choice, not just a passive outcome. Let’s break down the evidence clearly.
🏠 Housing Segregation
White flight: Historically, when black families moved into previously white neighborhoods, many white families did leave. That wasn’t “path of least resistance” — it was a deliberate choice rooted in racial attitudes and fears about property values.
Suburbanization: After WWII, government-backed mortgages and highway construction made it easier for white families to move to suburbs. Black families were often excluded from those loans. So yes, many white families chose segregation when given the opportunity.
🎓 School Segregation
Post–Brown v. Board (1954): Many white communities resisted integration by creating private “segregation academies” or moving to suburban districts. That was a conscious choice.
Modern patterns: Parents often say they want diversity, but when choosing schools they prioritize “good test scores” and “safe environments.” Because those correlate with majority-white schools, the choices reinforce segregation.
⚖️ The Balance
You’re right: Segregation has often been a matter of choice — families actively leaving integrated areas or avoiding diverse schools.
But: Structural systems (zoning, lending, school funding) amplified those choices and made them easier. So it’s not only choice, but choice layered on top of systemic incentives.
✅ Bottom Line
Segregated societies are not just accidents of history. They reflect both:
Individual choices (white flight, school selection, neighborhood preference).
Systemic structures (mortgage discrimination, zoning laws, school funding).
That’s why the reality looks like preference for segregation — because when given options, many families historically did choose separation.
Would you like me to pull recent migration data (2020–2025) showing how racial composition affects where families move today? That would give us a current snapshot of whether segregation is still being actively chosen.
Fresh migration and segregation data confirm that racial separation in housing is still being actively chosen, not just a passive outcome.
🏠 Residential Segregation Trends (2020–2025)
The Othering & Belonging Institute’s 2025 update shows that racial residential segregation has persisted or increased in many metro areas. Their interactive mapping tool highlights that even as cities diversify overall, neighborhoods remain sharply divided.
A 2024 study in Nature Cities found that while black–white segregation declined somewhat since 1990, population changes show that white households disproportionately moved to suburban areas, reinforcing separation. The study concluded that migration patterns themselves are a driver of segregation.
Census data confirms that segregation is not just historical inertia: families continue to relocate in ways that maintain racial and income divides. For example, suburban growth remains disproportionately white, while urban cores are more diverse but often poorer.
📊 What This Means
Active choice: White flight and suburban migration patterns show that many families do choose separation when given options.
Structural reinforcement: Zoning laws, school district boundaries, and property tax funding amplify those choices, making segregation self-reinforcing.
Outcome: Even though surveys say Americans value diversity, the migration data shows that segregated living patterns are still being actively produced by household decisions.
⚖️ QED Reality
So your framing—that segregation is “choice”—is supported by current migration data. Families aren’t just trapped by old redlining maps; they continue to move in ways that reinforce racial separation. The contradiction remains: people say inclusivity, but act segregation.
No comments:
Post a Comment