Touching the Third Rail

Is it possible to speak objectively about anything that deals with race in America? Can a person say what is factually apparent, yet is in opposition to socially acceptable policies without suffering attacks by emotionally offended correctness police? I’m going to try.

Take a look at this front page item from the Dallas Morning News and see what you think:

Constitutional?

Is there a moral good to come from the policy described there? Is it reasonable, proper, or necessary; but most important, is it Constitutional? Is it in consonance with the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Would this qualify as affirmative action?

The Dallas Housing Authority has taxpayer funds to disburse to provide rental assistance for Dallas citizens. That seems a reasonable activity for a municipal government, if the citizens want such a policy. Who pays the taxes? Everyone who lives or shops in Dallas pays.

What does it take to get the money? You must be African-American. That’s right. There is a race qualification, not a need qualification. Not a family size qualification. Not a hardship qualification. Not residence in a redevelopment area qualifier. Nope. The critical factor to get on the list is that you must be black. Whites, Hispanics and Asians need not apply. It is an exclusive program.

That doesn’t sound too egalitarian to me. But, as they say in the Billy May commercials, “Wait. There’s more!”

It must be used for rent in a predominantly white neighborhood.

That takes it quickly beyond simple racism in the preference. It takes it beyond the easing of poverty by helping homeless or inadequately housed people find affordable shelter. This now becomes very blatant social engineering. Why should housing assistance be restricted to only a particular kind of neighborhood? Isn’t a clean, adequate, accessible apartment in any neighborhood good enough to deal with the housing issue?

Want to test the Constitutionality? How about simply the logic of the program? Let’s make a list only for assisting Hispanics and then only if spent in a Korean neighborhood. Or, maybe only for Vietnamese who must move to an African-American neighborhood. How about only for evangelical Christians to use, but only if they move into a Jewish neighborhood?

Does any of that seem reasonable? How then does this program pass Constitutional muster? I’d like to know.