That family could never have assembled the capital necessary to build 17,000 homes on its own. What the federal government did in the 1940s and '50s, it came to a developer like Levitt, the Levitt family that built Levittown. ROTHSTEIN: Perhaps the best-known example is Levittown, just east of New York City, but there were subdivisions like this all over the country. Explain why this one government agency has so much influence over where people live and what the FHA did to prevent black people from buying and owning homes. SHAPIRO: The book gives so many different examples of how this played out, and one of the worst offenders is the FHA, the Federal Housing Administration.
These two policies worked together to segregate metropolitan areas in ways that they otherwise would never have been segregated. The second program that the federal government pursued was to subsidize the development of suburbs on a condition that they be only sold to white families and that the homes in those suburbs had deeds that prohibited resale to African-Americans. One was the first civilian public housing program which frequently demolished integrated neighborhoods in order to create segregated public housing. The federal government pursued two important policies in the mid-20th century that segregated metropolitan areas. ROTHSTEIN: It takes many people by surprise. And I have to admit that reading this book, the geographic scope, the longevity, the sheer creativity of these policies really took me by surprise. SHAPIRO: So the basic argument of your book is that while racist individuals might have contributed to housing segregation in specific cases, there was an overwhelming amount of government policy at the state, local and federal level that explicitly forced black people to live in different places from white people. Rothstein's new book is called "The Color Of Law: A Forgotten History Of How Our Government Segregated America." Welcome to the program. Even today, black and white people generally don't live in the same neighborhoods. Today, schools remain largely segregated, and the author Richard Rothstein argues that's because housing is segregated.
If the unions are objectionable because they prioritize their members’ interests, the critiques are properly understood as undercutting public-sector unions generally.This is the day in 1954 that the Supreme Court issued its famous ruling desegregating schools, Brown versus Board of Education. The problems with unions are only issues by extension. If police unions are objectionable because of their views and police conduct, this concern speaks to a problem with police-full stop. How are police unions different from other public-sector unions, and how might critiques of police unions apply to other public-sector unions? Ultimately, I argue that the challenge in articulating a theory of what makes police unions different highlights both the problem with police and the problem with how scholars think about unions. More pointedly, this Essay asks what critiques of police unions should mean for policing reform and the future of public-sector unionism. This Essay examines the strange case of police unions and asks how they are (and are not) representative of U.S. If public-sector unionism remains a social good, wholeheartedly embracing these critiques seems like a risky proposition. But, taken seriously, they often sound like critiques of unions in general, not just police unions. Much criticism of police unions focuses on their obstructionism and their prioritization of members’ interests over the interests of the communities they police. Yet, despite support for unionization on the political left, police unions have become public enemy number one for commentators concerned about race and police violence. In an era of declining labor power, police unions stand as a success story for worker organizing-they exert political clout and negotiate favorable terms for their members.
0 kommentar(er)
