African Elements Daily

HUD Targets Boston's DEI Housing Rules

Play Episode Pause Episode

Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds

00:00 / 8:11

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

HUD Targets Boston’s DEI Housing Rules

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The History Behind the Headlines

When the federal housing department announced a civil-rights probe into Boston’s housing policies, it sparked a national conversation. The investigation, initiated in December 2020, targets the city’s attempts to create more equitable housing opportunities for Black and Latino residents (wgbh.org). These policies fall under the umbrella of DEI, which stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. DEI is a framework used to promote fair treatment and access for people from groups that have been historically marginalized (diversity.com). Opponents, including the Trump administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), claim these rules punish white applicants and represent a form of “reverse discrimination” (wgbh.org).

However, this headline is not a new story. It is the latest chapter in a very old book about housing, race, and power in America. Local equity groups argue the federal probe threatens to undo crucial work aimed at repairing the deep financial and social damage inflicted upon Black communities (bostonpoliticalreview.org). This damage was not accidental. It was the direct result of decades of government-sanctioned policies designed to segregate communities and strip wealth from Black families. Understanding this history is essential to understanding the battle over Boston’s housing future.

A Painful Legacy: How Redlining Shaped Boston

The story of housing discrimination in Boston begins long before today’s headlines. In the 1930s, the federal government created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) to help stabilize the housing market during the Great Depression (academybank.com). The HOLC created “Residential Security Maps” for cities across the country, including Boston. These maps color-coded neighborhoods to assess mortgage lending risk. Neighborhoods with Black, immigrant, or Jewish residents were almost always colored red, marking them as “hazardous” for investment (richmond.edu).

This practice, known as redlining, effectively cut off entire communities from the financial resources needed to buy homes and build wealth. In Boston, neighborhoods like Roxbury, Mattapan, Dorchester, and the South End were heavily redlined (wgbh.org). As a result, Black families found it nearly impossible to get mortgages, while federal policies simultaneously subsidized the growth of all-white suburbs (segregationbydesign.com). Beyond redlining, private agreements called restrictive covenants were also used. As early as 1843, these clauses in property deeds legally barred the sale of land to Black people, ensuring segregation was enforced block by block (wgbh.org). These tools created a system where race determined access to the American dream of homeownership.

“Renewal” That Caused Ruin: Urban Displacement

Following World War II, a new threat emerged under the guise of progress. From the 1950s to the 1970s, federal “urban renewal” programs aimed to redevelop areas deemed “blighted” or “substandard” (wgbh.org). In reality, these initiatives often targeted thriving, low-income minority neighborhoods for demolition. Working-class communities were bulldozed to make way for highways, luxury housing, and commercial centers that the original residents could not afford. This process was so destructive to minority communities that it became known as “Negro Removal” (southendhistoricalsociety.org).

Boston provides stark examples of this devastation. The historic West End, a vibrant working-class neighborhood, was completely razed, displacing thousands of families to build luxury high-rises (thewestendmuseum.org). In Roxbury’s Washington Park section, homes and businesses were demolished for new developments. Unfortunately, much of this new housing was not affordable or accessible to the displaced Black residents, pushing them out of their own community and disrupting the social fabric that supported the Black family (wgbh.org). These projects did not renew communities; they dismantled them, worsening poverty and deepening segregation.

The Long Road to Fair Housing Laws

The fight against housing discrimination has been a long and arduous one. Massachusetts was actually ahead of the federal government, passing its Fair Housing Law, Chapter 151B, in 1946 (metrohousingboston.org). This law prohibited discrimination in housing based on race, color, and national origin, more than two decades before similar federal protections were enacted. Nationally, the struggle culminated in the Fair Housing Act of 1968. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law just one week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (gaar.com).

The Act outlawed discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. Additionally, it made practices like redlining illegal. While it was a monumental step, its initial enforcement powers were weak. Consequently, Congress passed further legislation to strengthen these protections. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 banned discrimination by creditors, and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 required banks to meet the credit needs of all communities, including low-income neighborhoods they had previously ignored (wgbh.org). These laws created the legal foundation to challenge systemic discrimination.

Boston’s DEI Policies: An Attempt to Heal

Decades after the Fair Housing Act, deep inequalities remain. Recognizing this, the city of Boston decided it needed to do more than simply forbid discrimination. The city sought to actively undo the damage of past policies. This approach is rooted in a concept called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH). AFFH is a legal requirement of the Fair Housing Act that obligates recipients of federal funds to take meaningful actions to overcome historical patterns of segregation (fairhousingnorcal.org).

In 2021, Boston implemented its own “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Zoning” policy (bostonplans.org). This rule requires large housing developers to assess how their projects will impact communities historically harmed by discrimination. Furthermore, developers must negotiate steps to reduce displacement and create new housing opportunities for marginalized groups. The policy represents a proactive effort to build a more integrated and equitable city. It is a local solution designed to address a local history of government-sponsored segregation, a conflict at the heart of federalism and Black politics.

The Federal Probe and Political Backlash

The HUD probe, launched in the final weeks of the Trump presidency, frames Boston’s equity-focused policies as discriminatory (wgbh.org). The investigation centers on the idea of “reverse discrimination,” a term used to claim that policies designed to help disadvantaged groups actually harm majority groups (medium.com). This argument is part of a larger national political backlash that portrays DEI initiatives as divisive and unfair. This type of opposition is a recurring theme in the history of Black politics and anti-Black politics.

The probe specifically questioned whether the city’s policies unlawfully “steer” affordable units to certain racial groups (wgbh.org). However, local advocates see this federal scrutiny as a direct attack on progress. They argue that race-conscious remedies are essential to counteract the lasting effects of race-conscious discrimination like redlining. From their perspective, ignoring the historical context means perpetuating the very inequalities that fair housing laws were meant to solve. True equity, they contend, requires proactive measures, not just a promise to stop discriminating.

The Enduring Scars of Segregation in Boston

The need for proactive policies is evident in the data. Despite decades of fair housing laws, Greater Boston remains one of the most segregated metropolitan areas in the country (diversitydatakids.org). A 2019 report found that among 384 metro areas, it had the 17th highest level of segregation for its Black population. The effects are tangible. The majority of people of color in the region are still concentrated in just 7 of its 126 communities (tbf.org). This is not a coincidence; it is a direct result of historical policies.

Where a person lives in Boston still determines their access to opportunity. Historically redlined neighborhoods, even those that have gentrified, often have lower-performing schools, fewer healthcare facilities, and limited access to fresh food (academyhealth.org). Meanwhile, many surrounding suburbs maintain exclusionary zoning regulations. Rules requiring large minimum lot sizes or banning multi-family housing make it impossible for lower-income families, who are disproportionately Black and Latino, to move in (boston.gov). These modern barriers continue the work that redlining started, locking families out of high-opportunity communities and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage.

About the Author

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.