WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.600 I want you to picture this. It's April 1968. 00:00:03.180 --> 00:00:05.660 You're in Washington, D .C. And if you're looking 00:00:05.660 --> 00:00:08.220 at the photos from that first week, you're not 00:00:08.220 --> 00:00:11.900 seeing the famous cherry blossoms. No, you're 00:00:11.900 --> 00:00:14.160 seeing smoke. You're seeing smoke rising over 00:00:14.160 --> 00:00:16.899 H Street. You're seeing members of the 82nd Airborne 00:00:16.899 --> 00:00:20.019 Division, actual soldiers, patrolling the steps 00:00:20.019 --> 00:00:21.980 of the U .S. Capitol. The machine guns, I mean, 00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:24.280 it literally looked like a war zone. And in so 00:00:24.280 --> 00:00:26.480 many ways it was. The entire country was just 00:00:26.480 --> 00:00:29.809 convulsing. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated 00:00:29.809 --> 00:00:32.810 in Memphis on April 4th. Right. And in response, 00:00:33.109 --> 00:00:35.729 you have more than 100 American cities that are, 00:00:35.810 --> 00:00:38.909 for all intents and purposes, on fire. And yet 00:00:38.909 --> 00:00:41.189 inside the Capitol building, while they can literally 00:00:41.189 --> 00:00:44.590 smell the smoke in the air, Congress is in this 00:00:44.590 --> 00:00:47.189 frantic race. A frantic race to pass a piece 00:00:47.189 --> 00:00:49.829 of legislation that, frankly, felt completely 00:00:49.829 --> 00:00:52.170 impossible just a week earlier. It was crisis 00:00:52.170 --> 00:00:55.079 legislation. And today... We're doing a deep 00:00:55.079 --> 00:00:57.259 dive into what came out of that fire. We're talking 00:00:57.259 --> 00:00:59.759 about the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Now, when 00:00:59.759 --> 00:01:01.520 people hear Civil Rights Act, they usually think 00:01:01.520 --> 00:01:04.239 of the big one. The 64 Act. Exactly. The one 00:01:04.239 --> 00:01:06.680 that ended segregation in restaurants, hotels, 00:01:07.060 --> 00:01:09.599 public spaces. Or they think of the Voting Rights 00:01:09.599 --> 00:01:13.200 Act of 65. The 68 Act, though, it's kind of the 00:01:13.200 --> 00:01:15.400 forgotten one. Or it gets reduced to a single 00:01:15.400 --> 00:01:17.359 nickname. People just call it the Fair Housing 00:01:17.359 --> 00:01:19.959 Act. Which is true. It is the Fair Housing Act. 00:01:20.140 --> 00:01:22.120 But, you know, that's kind of like saying an 00:01:22.120 --> 00:01:24.530 iPhone is just a calculator. Yeah, that's a great 00:01:24.530 --> 00:01:26.489 way to put it. It does that one thing really 00:01:26.489 --> 00:01:28.909 well, but it does so much more. Right. It does 00:01:28.909 --> 00:01:31.409 the calculation, but it also runs your entire 00:01:31.409 --> 00:01:36.450 life. The 1968 Act is this sprawling, almost 00:01:36.450 --> 00:01:41.010 bizarre legislative Swiss army knife. I've been 00:01:41.010 --> 00:01:43.769 reading through the actual text, and it feels 00:01:43.769 --> 00:01:45.969 like a Frankenstein's monster of a bill. It feels 00:01:45.969 --> 00:01:48.030 like three totally different laws that were just 00:01:48.030 --> 00:01:49.689 stapled together in a panic. And what are the 00:01:49.689 --> 00:01:51.750 three parts? Okay, so you've got Title VIII. 00:01:52.030 --> 00:01:53.750 which is a famous part. That's fair housing. 00:01:53.950 --> 00:01:56.109 It's about ending discrimination, opening up 00:01:56.109 --> 00:01:58.769 the suburbs. But then, buried right in the middle, 00:01:58.890 --> 00:02:01.969 you have Titles II through VII, which completely 00:02:01.969 --> 00:02:04.310 rewrote the legal relationship between Native 00:02:04.310 --> 00:02:06.469 American tribes and the U .S. government. Something 00:02:06.469 --> 00:02:08.550 most people have no ideas in there. Absolutely 00:02:08.550 --> 00:02:10.610 not. And then, tacked on at the end, you have 00:02:10.610 --> 00:02:13.009 Title I and Title X. And these are basically 00:02:13.009 --> 00:02:15.909 a federal crackdown on hate crimes and riots. 00:02:16.360 --> 00:02:19.080 It seems so disjointed at first glance. Housing, 00:02:19.400 --> 00:02:21.719 tribal law, riot control. What's the connection? 00:02:22.080 --> 00:02:24.699 But when you step back, you see this underlying 00:02:24.699 --> 00:02:27.919 theme, right? It's this tension between federal 00:02:27.919 --> 00:02:31.800 power and, for lack of a better word, local sovereignty. 00:02:32.300 --> 00:02:35.360 Whether that local entity is a white suburban 00:02:35.360 --> 00:02:37.639 neighborhood that doesn't want to integrate. 00:02:37.879 --> 00:02:40.300 Or a Native American tribe trying to govern itself. 00:02:40.500 --> 00:02:42.819 Or even a political protest group in the streets. 00:02:43.020 --> 00:02:45.759 This law was the federal government in one single 00:02:45.759 --> 00:02:48.879 week asserting its will over all of them. At 00:02:48.879 --> 00:02:51.020 the same time. So that's our mission for this 00:02:51.020 --> 00:02:52.599 deep dive. We're going to unpack this beast. 00:02:52.659 --> 00:02:54.759 We're going to figure out how these three incredibly 00:02:54.759 --> 00:02:58.099 different concepts, housing justice, tribal sovereignty, 00:02:58.219 --> 00:03:01.460 and riot control all, ended up in the same document 00:03:01.460 --> 00:03:05.300 that LBJ signed into law. On April 11th, 1968. 00:03:05.759 --> 00:03:07.560 And to do that, you have to start with the context. 00:03:07.719 --> 00:03:09.520 Because this wasn't a bill that was, you know, 00:03:09.520 --> 00:03:12.000 carefully debated over tea and crumpets in some 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:15.319 quiet chamber. No, this was forged in a pressure 00:03:15.319 --> 00:03:17.560 cooker. An absolute pressure cooker. So let's 00:03:17.560 --> 00:03:19.780 talk about that pressure cooker. Because before 00:03:19.780 --> 00:03:23.580 that week in April 1968, a federal fair housing 00:03:23.580 --> 00:03:25.960 bill was completely dead in the water. Oh, it 00:03:25.960 --> 00:03:27.919 was worse than dead. It was the political third 00:03:27.919 --> 00:03:29.819 rail. You didn't touch it. We hear it was hard 00:03:29.819 --> 00:03:31.919 to pass, but I don't think people realize how 00:03:31.919 --> 00:03:34.120 hard. Well, listen to this. This is a quote from 00:03:34.120 --> 00:03:36.740 Senator Walter Mondale, who was the bill's main 00:03:36.740 --> 00:03:39.159 sponsor in the Senate. He later called it the 00:03:39.159 --> 00:03:41.639 most filibustered legislation in U .S. history 00:03:41.639 --> 00:03:44.099 up to that point. The most filibustered. More 00:03:44.099 --> 00:03:46.719 than the 64 Act. More than any of them. He was 00:03:46.719 --> 00:03:48.620 just incredibly frustrated. And you have to put 00:03:48.620 --> 00:03:50.740 yourself in his shoes. The SIP rights movement 00:03:50.740 --> 00:03:53.699 had all this incredible momentum in 64 and 65. 00:03:54.240 --> 00:03:57.280 They broke the back of legal Jim Crow in the 00:03:57.280 --> 00:04:00.360 South. But then they got to housing. And they 00:04:00.360 --> 00:04:03.159 just hit a wall. A complete wall. So why? I mean, 00:04:03.180 --> 00:04:05.580 why was housing so much harder? It feels like 00:04:05.580 --> 00:04:08.280 if you can force a lunch counter in Alabama to 00:04:08.280 --> 00:04:10.780 serve everyone, you should be able to force a 00:04:10.780 --> 00:04:13.819 landlord in Chicago to do the same. And that's 00:04:13.819 --> 00:04:15.919 the key right there. You said Alabama and Chicago. 00:04:16.600 --> 00:04:19.600 Walter Mondale had this very sharp, maybe a little 00:04:19.600 --> 00:04:22.519 cynical, but very accurate insight on this. What 00:04:22.519 --> 00:04:25.709 was it? He pointed out that the 1964 and 1965 00:04:25.709 --> 00:04:29.529 acts were fundamentally the North telling the 00:04:29.529 --> 00:04:31.649 South what to do. Right. It was about fixing 00:04:31.649 --> 00:04:34.750 their problem. Exactly. It was easy for a senator 00:04:34.750 --> 00:04:38.730 from, say, Illinois or New York to vote for the 00:04:38.730 --> 00:04:40.930 Voting Rights Act. His constituents were already 00:04:40.930 --> 00:04:44.389 voting. The bill was about fixing those racists 00:04:44.389 --> 00:04:46.769 down there in Mississippi or Georgia. It's a 00:04:46.769 --> 00:04:48.769 morality play. And the villain is someone else 00:04:48.769 --> 00:04:50.930 somewhere else. Precisely. But the Fair Housing 00:04:50.930 --> 00:04:53.000 Act, that wasn't about the South. about Chicago. 00:04:53.300 --> 00:04:55.220 It was about Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, 00:04:55.339 --> 00:04:57.540 Philadelphia. It was about the suburbs everywhere. 00:04:57.879 --> 00:05:00.439 It was coming home. Mondale's words were, this 00:05:00.439 --> 00:05:02.680 came right to the neighborhoods across the country. 00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:05.019 This was civil rights getting personal. So as 00:05:05.019 --> 00:05:07.019 soon as the conversation shifted to who could 00:05:07.019 --> 00:05:09.139 buy the house next door to you. Suddenly those 00:05:09.139 --> 00:05:12.439 very liberal northern political coalitions started 00:05:12.439 --> 00:05:14.399 to get very nervous. They started to fracture. 00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:17.360 It's a classic NMBY. Problem, right? Yeah. Not 00:05:17.360 --> 00:05:20.360 in my backyard, just on this massive racialized 00:05:20.360 --> 00:05:23.040 scale. Absolutely. And you had powerful forces 00:05:23.040 --> 00:05:25.560 mobilizing against it. The National Association 00:05:25.560 --> 00:05:27.639 of Real Estate Boards, which is the predecessor 00:05:27.639 --> 00:05:29.600 to today's National Association of Realtors, 00:05:29.759 --> 00:05:31.860 they weren't just lobbying in D .C., they were 00:05:31.860 --> 00:05:34.839 weaponizing white homeowners. How so? They were 00:05:34.839 --> 00:05:37.459 funding campaigns built on fear, spreading the 00:05:37.459 --> 00:05:39.459 idea that if the government could tell you who 00:05:39.459 --> 00:05:41.839 to sell your house to, property values would 00:05:41.839 --> 00:05:44.879 collapse. That forced integration was a threat 00:05:44.879 --> 00:05:47.089 to your biggest investment. And this wasn't just 00:05:47.089 --> 00:05:50.009 talk. It actually killed a bill before 68, didn't 00:05:50.009 --> 00:05:52.569 it? It did. There was a proposed Civil Rights 00:05:52.569 --> 00:05:56.110 Act of 1966. It was a big, ambitious bill. But 00:05:56.110 --> 00:05:58.730 the housing provision was its poison pill. It 00:05:58.730 --> 00:06:01.189 failed spectacularly, largely because of that 00:06:01.189 --> 00:06:03.610 opposition. The issue was just politically radioactive. 00:06:04.069 --> 00:06:06.769 OK, so let's fast forward. It's early 1968. The 00:06:06.769 --> 00:06:08.750 bill is stuck in the Senate being filibustered. 00:06:08.850 --> 00:06:11.250 Everyone, including its supporters, basically 00:06:11.250 --> 00:06:14.029 expects it to die a quiet death. What happens? 00:06:14.170 --> 00:06:16.379 What breaks the gridlock? Two massive shocks 00:06:16.379 --> 00:06:19.000 to the system. The first one lands in March of 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:21.839 68. You get the Kerner Commission report. And 00:06:21.839 --> 00:06:23.899 remind us, what was the Kerner Commission? So 00:06:23.899 --> 00:06:25.560 this was the government's official investigation 00:06:25.560 --> 00:06:28.639 into what was called the Long Hot Summer of 1967. 00:06:29.259 --> 00:06:31.279 Right, when cities like Newark and Detroit had 00:06:31.279 --> 00:06:34.560 these huge, destructive riots. Yes. And President 00:06:34.560 --> 00:06:36.579 Johnson put together this commission, headed 00:06:36.579 --> 00:06:39.839 by Governor Otto Kerner of Illinois, to figure 00:06:39.839 --> 00:06:42.670 out why. Why is this happening? And the report 00:06:42.670 --> 00:06:45.389 they came back with absolutely terrified white 00:06:45.389 --> 00:06:47.350 America. What was the conclusion? The most famous 00:06:47.350 --> 00:06:50.410 line from the report is this. Our nation is moving 00:06:50.410 --> 00:06:53.370 toward two societies, one black, one white, separate 00:06:53.370 --> 00:06:56.310 and unequal. It was this brutal, honest assessment. 00:06:56.569 --> 00:06:58.629 And did they specifically connect this to housing? 00:06:59.050 --> 00:07:02.089 They drew a direct, unmissable line. They basically 00:07:02.089 --> 00:07:04.889 said that decades of housing segregation, of 00:07:04.889 --> 00:07:07.310 redlining, had created the ghetto conditions 00:07:07.310 --> 00:07:10.589 that were now exploding into riots. They explicitly 00:07:10.589 --> 00:07:14.069 recommended a national open housing law as a 00:07:14.069 --> 00:07:16.269 solution. So that primes the pump. It puts the 00:07:16.269 --> 00:07:18.350 idea out there that fair housing isn't just about 00:07:18.350 --> 00:07:20.689 fairness. It's about national security. It's 00:07:20.689 --> 00:07:22.470 about preventing the country from tearing itself 00:07:22.470 --> 00:07:26.129 apart. So that's shock number one. But the spark, 00:07:26.329 --> 00:07:29.639 the... The absolute tragedy that blasted the 00:07:29.639 --> 00:07:32.819 door off its hinges came on April 4th. Martin 00:07:32.819 --> 00:07:35.439 Luther King Jr. is assassinated. And the timeline 00:07:35.439 --> 00:07:38.160 from this moment on is just staggering. It's 00:07:38.160 --> 00:07:40.319 one of the most compressed and consequential 00:07:40.319 --> 00:07:43.000 weeks in American legislative history. So let's 00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:45.240 walk through it. Day by day, April 4th, Thursday, 00:07:45.579 --> 00:07:48.800 King is shot on a motel balcony in Memphis. And 00:07:48.800 --> 00:07:51.639 chaos erupts almost immediately. The King assassination 00:07:51.639 --> 00:07:54.540 riots, as they came to be called, break out in 00:07:54.540 --> 00:07:57.439 over 100 cities, and D .C. is one of the worst. 00:07:57.579 --> 00:08:00.459 So April 5th, Friday, Washington is literally 00:08:00.459 --> 00:08:03.699 on fire. Right. And President Johnson, seeing 00:08:03.699 --> 00:08:05.860 this unfold, writes a letter and sends it to 00:08:05.860 --> 00:08:07.660 the House of Representatives. And he's not asking 00:08:07.660 --> 00:08:09.420 nicely anymore. The tone is completely different. 00:08:09.560 --> 00:08:12.120 He is demanding that they pass the Fair Housing 00:08:12.120 --> 00:08:15.019 Act, framing it as both a tribute to Dr. King's 00:08:15.019 --> 00:08:18.160 legacy and as the only way to quell the violence 00:08:18.160 --> 00:08:20.160 in the streets. He's using the crisis as leverage. 00:08:20.620 --> 00:08:22.839 Maximum leverage. Now, the bill at this point 00:08:22.839 --> 00:08:24.560 had passed the Senate, but it was stuck in the 00:08:24.560 --> 00:08:26.620 House Rules Committee. Which is where bills usually 00:08:26.620 --> 00:08:29.149 go to die, right? The chairman can just sit on 00:08:29.149 --> 00:08:32.009 it forever. Exactly. The committee had been sitting 00:08:32.009 --> 00:08:34.009 on it, refusing to let it go to the floor for 00:08:34.009 --> 00:08:37.549 a full vote. But then comes Monday, April 8th, 00:08:37.549 --> 00:08:40.230 and the historical records have this amazing 00:08:40.230 --> 00:08:42.549 description of the meeting. They say the committee 00:08:42.549 --> 00:08:45.889 members were jolted by the repeated civil disturbances 00:08:45.889 --> 00:08:48.210 virtually outside its door. They could hear it. 00:08:48.549 --> 00:08:50.669 They could hear the sirens. They could smell 00:08:50.669 --> 00:08:53.710 the smoke from their offices. This was no longer 00:08:53.710 --> 00:08:55.990 an abstract debate about property rights. It 00:08:55.990 --> 00:08:57.529 was about the survival of the city they were 00:08:57.529 --> 00:09:00.169 in. It's amazing how quickly political conviction 00:09:00.169 --> 00:09:02.429 can evaporate when the building you're in starts 00:09:02.429 --> 00:09:05.470 to shake. Fear is a very powerful motivator in 00:09:05.470 --> 00:09:08.629 politics. So on April 8th, they suddenly end 00:09:08.629 --> 00:09:10.909 the hearings and release the bill to the floor. 00:09:11.190 --> 00:09:14.009 Two days later, April 10th, the full House votes. 00:09:14.210 --> 00:09:18.779 They pass it 250 to 172. And the very next day, 00:09:18.879 --> 00:09:21.419 April 11th, President Johnson signs it into law. 00:09:21.559 --> 00:09:25.179 One week. Seven days from assassination to enactment. 00:09:25.200 --> 00:09:27.159 That's just incredible. It's unheard of for a 00:09:27.159 --> 00:09:29.159 piece of legislation that controversial. And 00:09:29.159 --> 00:09:31.879 looking at that final vote count, 250 to 172, 00:09:32.039 --> 00:09:34.899 that's not exactly a landslide victory. No, and 00:09:34.899 --> 00:09:37.259 the breakdown of that vote is fascinating. It 00:09:37.259 --> 00:09:39.480 wasn't a clean party line split, which tells 00:09:39.480 --> 00:09:41.519 you how complicated the issue was. How did it 00:09:41.519 --> 00:09:44.639 break down? Democrats voted 150 in favor and 00:09:44.639 --> 00:09:46.980 88 against. So a lot of Southern Democrats still 00:09:46.980 --> 00:09:49.480 voted no. And the Republicans were almost evenly 00:09:49.480 --> 00:09:53.440 split. 104, 84 against. So this was a coalition 00:09:53.440 --> 00:09:56.259 of Northern Democrats and moderate Republicans 00:09:56.259 --> 00:09:59.000 all pushed into action by the crisis. It was 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:01.559 a coalition of the willing, driven by a profound 00:10:01.559 --> 00:10:04.440 sense of urgency. I think it's safe to say that 00:10:04.440 --> 00:10:06.600 without the tragedy of King's death and the riots 00:10:06.600 --> 00:10:08.759 that followed, we almost certainly would not 00:10:08.759 --> 00:10:11.460 have the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Which is... 00:10:11.559 --> 00:10:13.600 Deeply ironic, given that a big part of the bill 00:10:13.600 --> 00:10:15.679 is an anti -riot act, which we're going to get 00:10:15.679 --> 00:10:18.019 to. A huge irony. But let's start with the crown 00:10:18.019 --> 00:10:20.539 jewel. Let's dig into Title VIII, the Fair Housing 00:10:20.539 --> 00:10:23.769 Act itself. What did it actually do? OK, so this 00:10:23.769 --> 00:10:25.649 is the part of the law that really changed the 00:10:25.649 --> 00:10:28.549 face of American real estate. At its core, it 00:10:28.549 --> 00:10:30.570 was about ending discrimination in the sale, 00:10:30.769 --> 00:10:33.950 rental and financing of housing. And originally 00:10:33.950 --> 00:10:36.129 it established four protected classes, right? 00:10:36.230 --> 00:10:39.529 That's right. The original text from 68 covered 00:10:39.529 --> 00:10:43.549 race, color, religion and national origin. And 00:10:43.549 --> 00:10:45.649 the prohibitions are pretty broad. They were. 00:10:45.789 --> 00:10:48.309 It made it illegal to do the obvious things like 00:10:48.309 --> 00:10:51.110 refuse to sell or rent to someone because of 00:10:51.110 --> 00:10:54.490 their race. It also made it illegal to lie and 00:10:54.490 --> 00:10:56.730 say an apartment was already rented when it wasn't, 00:10:56.730 --> 00:10:59.070 which was a common tactic. The sorry it's already 00:10:59.070 --> 00:11:01.990 gone line. Exactly. But importantly, it also 00:11:01.990 --> 00:11:04.330 went after the machinery of housing segregation. 00:11:04.570 --> 00:11:08.070 It didn't just target individual bigots. It targeted 00:11:08.070 --> 00:11:10.629 discriminatory business practices. And the big 00:11:10.629 --> 00:11:12.190 one there was something called blockbusting. 00:11:12.309 --> 00:11:14.289 Yes. I've read about this and it just sounds 00:11:14.289 --> 00:11:16.639 like a. a predatory con game. Can you walk us 00:11:16.639 --> 00:11:18.700 through how blockbusting actually worked on the 00:11:18.700 --> 00:11:21.299 ground in a real neighborhood? It was purely 00:11:21.299 --> 00:11:25.179 predatory. So let's say you have a stable, middle 00:11:25.179 --> 00:11:28.100 -class white neighborhood in, say, the 1950s 00:11:28.100 --> 00:11:30.879 or 60s. A real estate agent, who we'd call a 00:11:30.879 --> 00:11:34.539 blockbuster, would move in to deliberately destabilize 00:11:34.539 --> 00:11:36.639 it for profit. How would they start? They'd use 00:11:36.639 --> 00:11:39.720 these really insidious tactics. They might hire 00:11:39.720 --> 00:11:41.480 a black woman to walk down the street pushing 00:11:41.480 --> 00:11:44.679 a baby in a stroller. Or they'd pay a few black 00:11:44.679 --> 00:11:47.860 teenagers to stage a loud fake fight on a street 00:11:47.860 --> 00:11:50.330 corner. Just to create a visible presence. A 00:11:50.330 --> 00:11:53.710 visible and deliberately scary presence. Then 00:11:53.710 --> 00:11:56.529 that same agent goes door to door to the white 00:11:56.529 --> 00:11:59.190 homeowners and says something like, did you see 00:11:59.190 --> 00:12:00.950 what's happening? They're moving in. The whole 00:12:00.950 --> 00:12:02.730 neighborhood is about to turn. I've seen it happen 00:12:02.730 --> 00:12:05.129 before. Your property values are going to crash. 00:12:05.350 --> 00:12:07.370 You need to sell to me now while you can still 00:12:07.370 --> 00:12:09.450 get something for your house. So they're manufacturing 00:12:09.450 --> 00:12:12.610 a panic, inducing panic selling. Exactly. They 00:12:12.610 --> 00:12:14.710 get the terrified white family to sell their 00:12:14.710 --> 00:12:18.090 house at a rock bottom, below market price. And 00:12:18.090 --> 00:12:20.580 then what? Then they turn right around and sell 00:12:20.580 --> 00:12:23.379 that exact same house to a black family. But 00:12:23.379 --> 00:12:25.460 because that black family has been systematically 00:12:25.460 --> 00:12:27.779 shut out of other neighborhoods by redlining 00:12:27.779 --> 00:12:30.340 and restrictive covenants, their housing options 00:12:30.340 --> 00:12:33.100 are severely limited. So they're desperate. They're 00:12:33.100 --> 00:12:35.879 desperate. And the blockbuster exploits that 00:12:35.879 --> 00:12:38.399 desperation, selling him the house at a massively 00:12:38.399 --> 00:12:42.159 inflated price, often with very predatory contract 00:12:42.159 --> 00:12:44.840 terms. So the agent is profiting on both ends 00:12:44.840 --> 00:12:47.259 of the transaction. Huge profits on both ends. 00:12:47.320 --> 00:12:50.139 And in the process, they destroy the neighborhood's 00:12:50.139 --> 00:12:52.320 social fabric and drain all the equity out of 00:12:52.320 --> 00:12:55.600 it. Title VIII of the 68 Act made those specific 00:12:55.600 --> 00:12:58.179 representations going door to door and trying 00:12:58.179 --> 00:13:01.429 to induce panic based on race illegal. That's 00:13:01.429 --> 00:13:03.629 a really crucial piece of consumer protection 00:13:03.629 --> 00:13:06.370 that's disguised as a civil rights law. It absolutely 00:13:06.370 --> 00:13:09.149 is. But the law didn't just stop there in 1968. 00:13:09.470 --> 00:13:12.289 It evolved. It grew over time. It had to. Society 00:13:12.289 --> 00:13:15.730 changed. In 1974, Congress came back and added 00:13:15.730 --> 00:13:18.789 sex as a protected class. This was a huge step 00:13:18.789 --> 00:13:21.370 for single women, divorced women who were often 00:13:21.370 --> 00:13:23.529 denied apartments or mortgages. And then there 00:13:23.529 --> 00:13:25.950 was an even bigger expansion later on. Yes. The 00:13:25.950 --> 00:13:28.570 biggest changes came in 1988 with the Fair Housing 00:13:28.570 --> 00:13:31.309 Amendments Act. That's when we added two more 00:13:31.309 --> 00:13:34.529 crucial categories, familial status and disability. 00:13:34.950 --> 00:13:37.370 Familial status sounds like legal jargon. That 00:13:37.370 --> 00:13:38.809 just means you can't discriminate against people 00:13:38.809 --> 00:13:41.090 with kids. That's the main thrust of it, yes. 00:13:41.730 --> 00:13:45.610 Before 1988, adults -only apartment complexes 00:13:45.610 --> 00:13:49.169 were perfectly legal and very common. Landlords 00:13:49.169 --> 00:13:51.909 could just flat out say, we don't want the noise, 00:13:52.090 --> 00:13:54.669 we don't want the hassle, no children allowed. 00:13:54.929 --> 00:13:56.919 And the amendment made that illegal. It did, 00:13:57.059 --> 00:13:59.580 with one major exception. You can still have 00:13:59.580 --> 00:14:02.860 senior housing, like a 55 plus retirement community, 00:14:03.039 --> 00:14:05.840 but... General purpose apartment buildings can 00:14:05.840 --> 00:14:09.039 no longer ban kids. The protection also extends 00:14:09.039 --> 00:14:11.299 to pregnant women and people in the process of 00:14:11.299 --> 00:14:13.759 adopting. OK, but the disability protections 00:14:13.759 --> 00:14:16.379 added an 88. This is where the law gets really 00:14:16.379 --> 00:14:19.000 technical and interesting. It's not just a negative 00:14:19.000 --> 00:14:21.240 command like don't discriminate. It actually 00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:24.440 creates a positive duty for landlords to do things. 00:14:24.580 --> 00:14:26.500 That's right. It creates an affirmative duty 00:14:26.500 --> 00:14:28.779 on the part of the housing provider. And we usually 00:14:28.779 --> 00:14:31.480 divide this into two buckets, reasonable modifications 00:14:31.480 --> 00:14:33.970 and reasonable accommodations. Let's drill down 00:14:33.970 --> 00:14:35.850 on modifications first. This is the physical 00:14:35.850 --> 00:14:38.090 stuff, the bricks and mortar. Correct. So let's 00:14:38.090 --> 00:14:40.610 take a classic example. A tenant uses a wheelchair 00:14:40.610 --> 00:14:43.049 and the doorway into the bathroom in their apartment 00:14:43.049 --> 00:14:45.769 is too narrow for the chair to fit through. Under 00:14:45.769 --> 00:14:48.389 the act, the landlord must allow the tenant to 00:14:48.389 --> 00:14:51.269 modify the unit by widening that doorway. They 00:14:51.269 --> 00:14:53.429 can't just say, no, you can't change my property. 00:14:53.769 --> 00:14:56.549 But who pays for it? Does the landlord have to 00:14:56.549 --> 00:14:58.710 pay to widen the door? And this is the critical 00:14:58.710 --> 00:15:01.470 part. Generally, no. The tenant has to pay for 00:15:01.470 --> 00:15:04.559 the modification themselves. Okay, so I'm the 00:15:04.559 --> 00:15:07.419 tenant. I pay a contractor a few hundred dollars 00:15:07.419 --> 00:15:09.820 to whiten the door. I live there for five years, 00:15:09.899 --> 00:15:12.740 and then I decide to move out. What happens then? 00:15:13.200 --> 00:15:15.500 Does the landlord just get a free, upgraded, 00:15:15.559 --> 00:15:18.980 more accessible apartment? Maybe, but here's 00:15:18.980 --> 00:15:22.299 the nuance. The landlord can require you to restore 00:15:22.299 --> 00:15:24.799 the unit to its original condition when you leave, 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:27.279 if the modification would interfere with the 00:15:27.279 --> 00:15:29.440 next tenant's use or enjoyment of the apartment. 00:15:29.879 --> 00:15:32.360 Wait, hold on. How would a wider doorway interfere 00:15:32.360 --> 00:15:34.799 with the next tenant? If anything, it seems like 00:15:34.799 --> 00:15:36.860 a benefit. And you've hit on the exact legal 00:15:36.860 --> 00:15:39.759 test. In the case of a widened doorway, it almost 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:42.000 certainly wouldn't interfere. The regulations 00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:44.279 say that if the modification doesn't affect the 00:15:44.279 --> 00:15:47.240 usability for the next person, the landlord can't 00:15:47.240 --> 00:15:49.139 require you to restore it. But what's an example 00:15:49.139 --> 00:15:51.299 of something I would have to change back? Let's 00:15:51.299 --> 00:15:53.500 say you're in a wheelchair and you pay to have 00:15:53.500 --> 00:15:55.679 all the kitchen cabinets and countertops lowered 00:15:55.679 --> 00:15:58.730 by a foot so you can reach them. that might very 00:15:58.730 --> 00:16:01.029 well interfere with the next tenant who might 00:16:01.029 --> 00:16:03.789 be 6 '4 and can't comfortably use that kitchen. 00:16:03.970 --> 00:16:06.129 Okay, that makes sense. So in that case, the 00:16:06.129 --> 00:16:08.669 landlord could require you to put the cabinets 00:16:08.669 --> 00:16:10.629 back at their original height when you move out. 00:16:10.769 --> 00:16:12.929 And I remember reading something about an escrow 00:16:12.929 --> 00:16:15.870 account. How does that work? Yes, this is another 00:16:15.870 --> 00:16:18.129 protection for the landlord. If the restoration 00:16:18.129 --> 00:16:20.710 is going to be expensive, the landlord can actually 00:16:20.710 --> 00:16:23.690 require the tenant to pay a little extra money 00:16:23.690 --> 00:16:26.509 each month into an interest -bearing escrow account. 00:16:27.019 --> 00:16:29.200 To save up for the future repairs. Exactly. So 00:16:29.200 --> 00:16:31.559 the money is guaranteed to be there to restore 00:16:31.559 --> 00:16:34.759 the apartment when they leave. Wow. That seems 00:16:34.759 --> 00:16:37.100 like a really high hurdle for a low -income tenant 00:16:37.100 --> 00:16:39.980 with a disability to clear. It is. It's a compromise 00:16:39.980 --> 00:16:42.620 written into the law. The law grants the right 00:16:42.620 --> 00:16:45.100 to access, but it doesn't always provide the 00:16:45.100 --> 00:16:47.779 funding to achieve it. Okay, so that's modifications. 00:16:48.259 --> 00:16:50.639 What about the other bucket, accommodations? 00:16:51.399 --> 00:16:55.240 So accommodations are about changing rules, policies, 00:16:55.379 --> 00:16:58.809 or procedures. Not physical structures. Give 00:16:58.809 --> 00:17:00.929 me the classic example. The classic example is 00:17:00.929 --> 00:17:03.230 the no pets policy. An apartment building says 00:17:03.230 --> 00:17:06.650 absolutely no pets allowed. But a person who 00:17:06.650 --> 00:17:09.029 is blind applies to live there and they have 00:17:09.029 --> 00:17:11.450 a seeing eye dog. The dog has to be allowed. 00:17:11.670 --> 00:17:14.150 The landlord must make a reasonable accommodation 00:17:14.150 --> 00:17:17.089 and waive the no pets rule for that assistance 00:17:17.089 --> 00:17:20.130 animal. And they can't charge a pet fee or a 00:17:20.130 --> 00:17:22.930 pet deposit because it's not a pet. It's a medical 00:17:22.930 --> 00:17:25.200 aid. What about parking? I feel like parking 00:17:25.200 --> 00:17:27.720 disputes are the number one cause of strife in 00:17:27.720 --> 00:17:30.079 apartment living. A huge area for accommodations. 00:17:30.400 --> 00:17:33.960 Let's say your building has a first come, first 00:17:33.960 --> 00:17:37.559 served. parking lot, no assigned spots. But a 00:17:37.559 --> 00:17:40.380 tenant has a mobility impairment that makes it 00:17:40.380 --> 00:17:42.380 very difficult for them to walk long distances. 00:17:42.660 --> 00:17:44.480 So they need a spot near the door. Right. They 00:17:44.480 --> 00:17:46.759 can request an accommodation and the landlord 00:17:46.759 --> 00:17:49.440 would be required to assign them a specific reserved 00:17:49.440 --> 00:17:51.640 working space close to their unit, even though 00:17:51.640 --> 00:17:54.119 no one else gets an assigned spot. That's a change 00:17:54.119 --> 00:17:56.460 in policy. So the law is pretty comprehensive. 00:17:57.759 --> 00:18:01.099 But it's not universal. We have to talk about 00:18:01.099 --> 00:18:03.400 the big loophole, the Mrs. Murphy exemption. 00:18:04.649 --> 00:18:07.569 Yes, Mrs. Murphy's boarding house. When I first 00:18:07.569 --> 00:18:09.309 heard about this, I seriously thought it was 00:18:09.309 --> 00:18:12.710 an urban legend. But it's real. It's very real. 00:18:12.829 --> 00:18:14.950 The name actually comes from the legislative 00:18:14.950 --> 00:18:18.289 debates around the bill. The idea was to protect 00:18:18.289 --> 00:18:20.970 a hypothetical elderly widow, a Mrs. Murphy, 00:18:21.210 --> 00:18:24.089 who rents out a spare room in her own home to 00:18:24.089 --> 00:18:26.769 make ends meet. The question was, should the 00:18:26.769 --> 00:18:28.710 federal government be able to force her to live 00:18:28.710 --> 00:18:30.690 with someone she's not comfortable with? Congress 00:18:30.690 --> 00:18:33.529 decided no. They decided no. They wanted to balance 00:18:33.529 --> 00:18:36.029 civil rights with an individual's right to privacy 00:18:36.029 --> 00:18:38.630 and association within their own home. So what's 00:18:38.630 --> 00:18:41.130 the specific rule? How does the exemption work? 00:18:41.349 --> 00:18:43.849 Okay, it's a two -part test. First, the building 00:18:43.849 --> 00:18:46.630 has to have four or fewer units. And second, 00:18:46.809 --> 00:18:48.690 the owner of the building has to live in one 00:18:48.690 --> 00:18:51.390 of those units. So a duplex, a triplex, or a 00:18:51.390 --> 00:18:53.430 fourplex where the owner is also a resident. 00:18:53.549 --> 00:18:55.769 Exactly. If both of those conditions are met, 00:18:55.910 --> 00:18:58.069 the owner is exempt from the Fair Housing Act's 00:18:58.069 --> 00:19:00.329 non -discrimination standards when they choose 00:19:00.329 --> 00:19:02.690 their tenants. Let me be really clear about this. 00:19:03.069 --> 00:19:06.990 If I own a fourplex and I live in Unit A, I can 00:19:06.990 --> 00:19:09.349 legally tell a prospective tenant for Unit B, 00:19:09.390 --> 00:19:11.410 I'm sorry, I'm not renting to you because... 00:19:11.740 --> 00:19:14.220 you're Muslim or because you're black? Under 00:19:14.220 --> 00:19:16.720 federal law, in that very specific scenario, 00:19:17.019 --> 00:19:19.680 yes, you can make that discriminatory choice. 00:19:20.160 --> 00:19:24.160 However, and this is a massive, massive asterisk 00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:26.880 that trips up a lot of small landlords. The exemption 00:19:26.880 --> 00:19:30.140 only applies to the final selection of the tenant. 00:19:30.259 --> 00:19:32.660 It does not apply to discriminatory advertising. 00:19:32.740 --> 00:19:35.099 Explain that distinction. That's huge. So you, 00:19:35.279 --> 00:19:38.119 the owner -occupant of the fourplex, can discriminate 00:19:38.119 --> 00:19:40.720 in your head and in your final decision. But 00:19:40.720 --> 00:19:43.039 you cannot place an ad on Craigslist or in the 00:19:43.039 --> 00:19:45.640 local paper that says no kids or Christians only. 00:19:46.039 --> 00:19:48.660 Title VIII's ban on discriminatory advertising 00:19:48.660 --> 00:19:52.059 applies to everyone, even Mrs. Murphy. That seems 00:19:52.059 --> 00:19:54.599 psychologically contradictory. The law is saying 00:19:54.599 --> 00:19:56.720 you can be a bigot. You just can't announce it 00:19:56.720 --> 00:19:59.099 publicly. That's a good way to put it. The law 00:19:59.099 --> 00:20:01.920 is trying to prevent the public humiliation and 00:20:01.920 --> 00:20:04.140 the creation of a hostile segregated marketplace 00:20:04.140 --> 00:20:07.579 while still preserving that small sliver of private 00:20:07.579 --> 00:20:10.720 right to choose who literally sleeps under your 00:20:10.720 --> 00:20:13.039 own roof. It's a very fine line. And speaking 00:20:13.039 --> 00:20:15.839 of fine lines in modern interpretations, let's 00:20:15.839 --> 00:20:19.900 talk about LGBTQ plus rights. The words sexual 00:20:19.900 --> 00:20:23.319 orientation and gender identity are not in the 00:20:23.319 --> 00:20:26.380 text of the 1968 Act. They are not. But the word 00:20:26.380 --> 00:20:29.059 sex is. And this is a perfect example of how 00:20:29.059 --> 00:20:32.140 a law passed decades ago can live and breathe 00:20:32.140 --> 00:20:34.960 and adapt to new social and legal understandings. 00:20:34.960 --> 00:20:37.539 So for a long time, courts just interpreted sex 00:20:37.539 --> 00:20:40.119 to mean biological male or female. For decades, 00:20:40.380 --> 00:20:43.319 yes. But the tectonic plates of legal interpretation 00:20:43.319 --> 00:20:46.460 shifted in a huge way in 2020 with a Supreme 00:20:46.460 --> 00:20:48.960 Court decision called Bostock v. Clayton County. 00:20:49.059 --> 00:20:50.279 Right. That was a big employment discrimination 00:20:50.279 --> 00:20:52.420 case. It was an employment case, not a housing 00:20:52.420 --> 00:20:54.900 case. But the logic it established was revolution. 00:20:55.180 --> 00:20:58.539 It was a 6 -3 decision. And Justice Neil Gorsuch, 00:20:58.700 --> 00:21:01.019 a conservative, wrote the majority opinion. And 00:21:01.019 --> 00:21:03.519 what was his reasoning? It was this really elegant 00:21:03.519 --> 00:21:05.960 piece of textualism, basically a logic puzzle. 00:21:06.650 --> 00:21:09.650 He said, imagine you have two employees who are 00:21:09.650 --> 00:21:11.730 both attracted to men. One is a woman, one is 00:21:11.730 --> 00:21:14.690 a man. If you fire the male employee for being 00:21:14.690 --> 00:21:17.049 attracted to men, but you don't fire the female 00:21:17.049 --> 00:21:19.230 employee for being attracted to men, then you 00:21:19.230 --> 00:21:21.809 have made a decision that is based in part on 00:21:21.809 --> 00:21:24.150 the employee's sex. You can't separate the two. 00:21:24.250 --> 00:21:27.450 You can't. He argued that to discriminate against 00:21:27.450 --> 00:21:30.130 someone for being gay or transgender, you necessarily 00:21:30.130 --> 00:21:32.710 have to take their sex into account. Therefore, 00:21:32.910 --> 00:21:35.670 it is a form of sex discrimination. It's a logic 00:21:35.670 --> 00:21:37.579 game. that results in protection. A brilliant 00:21:37.579 --> 00:21:39.940 one. And almost immediately after that decision, 00:21:40.079 --> 00:21:42.200 people started asking, well, if that's what sex 00:21:42.200 --> 00:21:44.359 means for employment law, doesn't it have to 00:21:44.359 --> 00:21:46.619 mean the same thing for housing law? And the 00:21:46.619 --> 00:21:49.359 Biden administration said yes. They did. In February 00:21:49.359 --> 00:21:51.599 of 2021, the Department of Housing and Urban 00:21:51.599 --> 00:21:55.000 Development, or HUD, issued a formal directive. 00:21:55.630 --> 00:21:58.430 It said that based on the Supreme Court's reasoning 00:21:58.430 --> 00:22:01.470 in Bostock, HUD will now enforce the Fair Housing 00:22:01.470 --> 00:22:04.069 Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual 00:22:04.069 --> 00:22:06.690 orientation and gender identity. So as of right 00:22:06.690 --> 00:22:10.269 now, LGBTQ plus status is effectively a protected 00:22:10.269 --> 00:22:12.930 class in housing. Correct. But it's not because 00:22:12.930 --> 00:22:15.890 Congress passed a new law. It's because we are 00:22:15.890 --> 00:22:18.819 rereading a single word sex. That's been in the 00:22:18.819 --> 00:22:21.779 law since 1974. Exactly. And that's an important 00:22:21.779 --> 00:22:24.279 distinction because it's based on an administrative 00:22:24.279 --> 00:22:27.259 interpretation and a Supreme Court case. It could 00:22:27.259 --> 00:22:30.319 theoretically be reversed by a future court or 00:22:30.319 --> 00:22:33.000 a different administration. It's legally solid 00:22:33.000 --> 00:22:36.180 for now, but it's not codified in stone the way 00:22:36.180 --> 00:22:38.799 race or religion are. OK, this is a perfect place 00:22:38.799 --> 00:22:40.579 to pivot. We've talked about the suburbs and 00:22:40.579 --> 00:22:42.660 apartments. Now we need to leave all that behind 00:22:42.660 --> 00:22:45.059 and head to the reservation. This is the part 00:22:45.059 --> 00:22:47.329 of the bill that I have to admit. Completely 00:22:47.329 --> 00:22:49.809 shocked me. Titles two through seventh, also 00:22:49.809 --> 00:22:51.890 known as the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. 00:22:52.410 --> 00:22:54.369 This is the forgotten middle child of this legislation. 00:22:54.549 --> 00:22:57.730 Absolutely. My first question is just why? Why 00:22:57.730 --> 00:23:00.009 is a law that we associate with Martin Luther 00:23:00.009 --> 00:23:02.509 King and fair housing suddenly dealing with the 00:23:02.509 --> 00:23:05.289 intricacies of tribal courts? Because it was 00:23:05.289 --> 00:23:07.990 designed to solve a massive legal paradox, a 00:23:07.990 --> 00:23:10.890 rights vacuum that had existed for nearly a century. 00:23:11.190 --> 00:23:13.589 OK, you have to go back in time for us. We have 00:23:13.589 --> 00:23:16.339 to go back to 1896. There was a Supreme Court 00:23:16.339 --> 00:23:20.119 case called Talton v. Mays. And in that case, 00:23:20.279 --> 00:23:22.680 the court laid out a really strange but powerful 00:23:22.680 --> 00:23:24.940 doctrine. They ruled that because Native American 00:23:24.940 --> 00:23:28.680 tribes are distinct, independent political communities, 00:23:28.900 --> 00:23:32.019 essentially, sovereign nations that predate the 00:23:32.019 --> 00:23:34.240 Constitution, the U .S. Constitution does not 00:23:34.240 --> 00:23:36.339 apply to them. Wait, stop there. So if I were 00:23:36.339 --> 00:23:38.740 a member of the Navajo Nation living on a reservation 00:23:38.740 --> 00:23:42.779 in, say, 1960, the First Amendment's guarantee 00:23:42.779 --> 00:23:45.160 of free speech didn't protect me. Not from your 00:23:45.160 --> 00:23:47.319 tribal government. The Bill of Rights was written 00:23:47.319 --> 00:23:49.259 to limit the power of the federal government. 00:23:49.579 --> 00:23:52.319 Later, the 14th Amendment applied most of those 00:23:52.319 --> 00:23:54.980 rights to limit state governments. But a tribe 00:23:54.980 --> 00:23:57.500 is neither a state nor the federal government. 00:23:57.660 --> 00:23:59.299 It's a third sovereign. It's a third sovereign. 00:23:59.400 --> 00:24:02.740 So if a tribal council in 1960 wanted to ban 00:24:02.740 --> 00:24:05.839 a certain newspaper or seize your property without 00:24:05.839 --> 00:24:08.400 due process or establish an official religion, 00:24:08.740 --> 00:24:11.140 the U .S. Constitution had absolutely nothing 00:24:11.140 --> 00:24:13.700 to say about it. That's a huge black hole for 00:24:13.700 --> 00:24:16.380 civil rights. It was an enormous vacuum. And 00:24:16.380 --> 00:24:18.660 by the 1960s, Congress started holding hearings 00:24:18.660 --> 00:24:22.279 and they heard absolute horror stories. The official 00:24:22.279 --> 00:24:25.960 committee reports use the phrase corrupt, incompetent 00:24:25.960 --> 00:24:28.839 or tyrannical tribal officials. There were stories 00:24:28.839 --> 00:24:30.660 of people being banished or having their property 00:24:30.660 --> 00:24:33.640 taken with no recourse. Congress felt it had 00:24:33.640 --> 00:24:36.299 to step in. So they passed the Indian Civil Rights 00:24:36.299 --> 00:24:40.059 Act or ICRA as part of this big 1968 package. 00:24:40.259 --> 00:24:43.329 Did they just? Copy and paste the U .S. Bill 00:24:43.329 --> 00:24:45.869 of Rights and apply it to the tribes? Mostly, 00:24:45.910 --> 00:24:48.230 but not entirely. And the omissions are just 00:24:48.230 --> 00:24:50.509 as important as the inclusions. They did grant 00:24:50.509 --> 00:24:52.589 Native Americans on reservations most of the 00:24:52.589 --> 00:24:55.289 big protections. Free speech, freedom of the 00:24:55.289 --> 00:24:58.609 press, freedom of assembly, protection from unreasonable 00:24:58.609 --> 00:25:01.069 search and seizure, from double jeopardy, the 00:25:01.069 --> 00:25:03.410 right to a speedy trial. All the greatest hits 00:25:03.410 --> 00:25:05.930 are in there. But what did they leave out? They 00:25:05.930 --> 00:25:08.829 made some very specific, intentional omissions 00:25:08.829 --> 00:25:11.150 to try and respect tribal culture and sovereignty. 00:25:11.240 --> 00:25:13.740 Like what? For one, they left out the establishment 00:25:13.740 --> 00:25:15.720 clause. That's the part of the First Amendment 00:25:15.720 --> 00:25:18.119 that creates the separation of church and state. 00:25:18.279 --> 00:25:21.619 Right. And they left it out because many tribal 00:25:21.619 --> 00:25:24.720 governments are, for lack of a better word, theocratic. 00:25:25.359 --> 00:25:27.460 Their system of governance and their spiritual 00:25:27.460 --> 00:25:30.559 leadership are often one in the same. If you 00:25:30.559 --> 00:25:33.119 forced a strict separation of church and state 00:25:33.119 --> 00:25:35.420 on them, you would effectively dissolve the traditional 00:25:35.420 --> 00:25:38.059 structure of their tribe. So ICRA allows for 00:25:38.059 --> 00:25:40.680 that to continue. It does. Another big omission 00:25:40.680 --> 00:25:43.720 has to do with lawyers in criminal cases. Okay. 00:25:43.799 --> 00:25:45.960 In a U .S. court under Gideon v. Wainwright, 00:25:46.099 --> 00:25:48.759 if you're poor and accused of a serious crime, 00:25:49.240 --> 00:25:51.519 the government has to provide you with a lawyer. 00:25:51.880 --> 00:25:54.880 Correct. Under ICRA, a tribal member has the 00:25:54.880 --> 00:25:57.339 right to a lawyer. but only at their own expense. 00:25:57.680 --> 00:25:59.740 The tribal government is not required to provide 00:25:59.740 --> 00:26:01.920 a public defender. That's a massive difference. 00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:04.700 What was the reasoning? Purely financial. Congress 00:26:04.700 --> 00:26:06.960 realized that many tribes were very poor and 00:26:06.960 --> 00:26:09.200 simply did not have the money or the infrastructure 00:26:09.200 --> 00:26:12.319 to fund a public defender system. Requiring them 00:26:12.319 --> 00:26:14.240 to do so would have bankrupted their governments. 00:26:14.539 --> 00:26:17.720 So they were trying to thread this very delicate 00:26:17.720 --> 00:26:21.740 needle granting individual rights, but also trying 00:26:21.740 --> 00:26:24.579 to preserve the tribe's ability to function as 00:26:24.579 --> 00:26:27.700 a sovereign entity. That was the goal. But then 00:26:27.700 --> 00:26:30.420 came the court case that blew this whole arrangement 00:26:30.420 --> 00:26:33.579 wide open and really defined what ICRA means 00:26:33.579 --> 00:26:36.240 today. And that's Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez. 00:26:36.599 --> 00:26:40.519 A landmark case from 1978. It's a tragic story, 00:26:40.680 --> 00:26:43.299 but it is a masterclass in this conflict between 00:26:43.299 --> 00:26:45.859 individual rights and collective sovereignty. 00:26:46.670 --> 00:26:48.910 So introduce us to the woman at the center of 00:26:48.910 --> 00:26:51.829 this, Julia Martinez. Julia Martinez was a full 00:26:51.829 --> 00:26:53.829 -blooded member of the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe 00:26:53.829 --> 00:26:56.849 located in New Mexico. She lived her whole life 00:26:56.849 --> 00:26:59.309 on the reservation. She fell in love with and 00:26:59.309 --> 00:27:02.009 married a man who was Navajoso, another Native 00:27:02.009 --> 00:27:04.369 American, but not a member of her specific tribe. 00:27:04.549 --> 00:27:06.470 They had children and raised them on the Santa 00:27:06.470 --> 00:27:09.230 Clara Pueblo reservation. But the tribe had an 00:27:09.230 --> 00:27:11.589 old membership ordinance dating back to 1939. 00:27:12.170 --> 00:27:14.750 And this ordinance said that if a female member 00:27:14.750 --> 00:27:20.490 of the tribe marries someone from But what about 00:27:20.490 --> 00:27:22.809 the men? What if a Santa Clara man married an 00:27:22.809 --> 00:27:25.190 outsider? If a man married an outsider, his children 00:27:25.190 --> 00:27:27.069 were automatically granted tribal membership. 00:27:27.329 --> 00:27:30.170 It was strictly patrilineal. That is the most 00:27:30.170 --> 00:27:33.470 textbook, clear -cut case of sex discrimination 00:27:33.470 --> 00:27:36.609 I have ever heard. And you just told me that 00:27:36.609 --> 00:27:39.910 the ICRA explicitly guarantees equal protection 00:27:39.910 --> 00:27:42.849 of the laws. Exactly. And that was her argument. 00:27:43.339 --> 00:27:46.299 Julia Martinez sued the tribe. She argued that 00:27:46.299 --> 00:27:48.519 this membership rule violated her rights under 00:27:48.519 --> 00:27:50.839 the Indian Civil Rights Act. And this wasn't 00:27:50.839 --> 00:27:53.359 just about a title. It had real world consequences. 00:27:53.880 --> 00:27:55.960 Her children couldn't vote in tribal elections. 00:27:56.119 --> 00:27:59.099 They couldn't hold office. And crucially, they 00:27:59.099 --> 00:28:00.880 couldn't inherit her home on the reservation. 00:28:01.279 --> 00:28:03.599 So when she died, her kids could have been evicted 00:28:03.599 --> 00:28:05.400 from the house they grew up in. That was the 00:28:05.400 --> 00:28:07.119 fear. This sounds like an open and shut case. 00:28:07.259 --> 00:28:09.839 Federal law says equal protection. The tribe's 00:28:09.839 --> 00:28:12.269 rule is a clear violation. She should win. And 00:28:12.269 --> 00:28:14.250 that's what the lower courts wrestled with. But 00:28:14.250 --> 00:28:15.970 when the case got all the way to the U .S. Supreme 00:28:15.970 --> 00:28:18.269 Court, the legal question shifted. The question 00:28:18.269 --> 00:28:20.730 before the court wasn't, is this rule sexist? 00:28:20.829 --> 00:28:23.309 Everybody knew it was. The question became, who 00:28:23.309 --> 00:28:26.029 gets to decide if it's illegal? The tribe or 00:28:26.029 --> 00:28:28.730 the federal courts? Precisely. And in a 7 -1 00:28:28.730 --> 00:28:31.670 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Julian 00:28:31.670 --> 00:28:34.079 Martinez. Why? What was the logic? The court's 00:28:34.079 --> 00:28:36.880 majority, led by Justice Thurgood Marshall, said 00:28:36.880 --> 00:28:39.599 that while Congress passed the ICRA and granted 00:28:39.599 --> 00:28:42.440 these rights, it did not explicitly create what's 00:28:42.440 --> 00:28:45.400 called a private cause of action in federal court 00:28:45.400 --> 00:28:48.920 to enforce them. Can you translate that legal 00:28:48.920 --> 00:28:52.339 jargon for us? They basically said, yes, you 00:28:52.339 --> 00:28:54.980 have these rights on paper, but the only place 00:28:54.980 --> 00:28:57.059 you can go to enforce them is a tribal court. 00:28:57.720 --> 00:28:59.799 The Supreme Court held that allowing a tribe 00:28:59.799 --> 00:29:02.259 to be sued by its own members in a U .S. federal 00:29:02.259 --> 00:29:05.099 court would be a massive intrusion on their sovereignty. 00:29:05.380 --> 00:29:07.859 It would undermine their status as self -governing 00:29:07.859 --> 00:29:10.380 nations. So they prioritized the sovereignty 00:29:10.380 --> 00:29:12.720 of the group over the civil rights of the individual. 00:29:12.980 --> 00:29:15.319 They did. They essentially ruled that a tribe 00:29:15.319 --> 00:29:17.460 has the sovereign right to define its own identity, 00:29:17.660 --> 00:29:20.440 to decide who is and who is not a member, even 00:29:20.440 --> 00:29:22.740 if that definition appears discriminatory by 00:29:22.740 --> 00:29:26.230 outside American standards. So the federal government 00:29:26.230 --> 00:29:28.450 gave with one hand and took away the enforcement 00:29:28.450 --> 00:29:31.049 mechanism with the other. They said, here's a 00:29:31.049 --> 00:29:33.410 list of your rights, but good luck getting your 00:29:33.410 --> 00:29:35.170 tribal council to enforce them if they're the 00:29:35.170 --> 00:29:37.829 ones violating them. That is the central paradox 00:29:37.829 --> 00:29:41.650 of the ICRA today. It stands as a powerful statement 00:29:41.650 --> 00:29:44.650 of values. But because of the Martinez decision, 00:29:44.930 --> 00:29:47.109 federal courts will generally not get involved 00:29:47.109 --> 00:29:50.509 in internal tribal civil rights disputes. The 00:29:50.509 --> 00:29:53.349 tribe's own court system is the final word. It's 00:29:53.349 --> 00:29:55.970 a really powerful reminder that sovereignty isn't 00:29:55.970 --> 00:29:59.269 just a flag or a name. It's the power to make 00:29:59.269 --> 00:30:02.130 your own rules and even the power to be wrong 00:30:02.130 --> 00:30:05.210 by someone else's standards. Or, as the tribe 00:30:05.210 --> 00:30:07.309 would argue, the power to be different. They 00:30:07.309 --> 00:30:09.609 argued that their control over lineage and membership 00:30:09.609 --> 00:30:12.349 was essential to their cultural survival. If 00:30:12.349 --> 00:30:14.250 the federal government could dictate who's a 00:30:14.250 --> 00:30:16.349 member, they would cease to be a distinct people. 00:30:16.589 --> 00:30:18.769 Okay, we need to move to the third and final 00:30:18.769 --> 00:30:21.470 pillar of this act. the one that deals directly 00:30:21.470 --> 00:30:24.569 with the fire and the fury of 1968. We're talking 00:30:24.569 --> 00:30:27.329 about Title I and Title X, the hate crimes and 00:30:27.329 --> 00:30:30.029 anti -riot provisions. Right. And you have to 00:30:30.029 --> 00:30:32.150 see these two sections as the political tradeoff. 00:30:32.289 --> 00:30:34.549 This was the law and order meat that was thrown 00:30:34.549 --> 00:30:36.309 to the conservative members of Congress to get 00:30:36.309 --> 00:30:38.009 them to vote for the fair housing part of the 00:30:38.009 --> 00:30:40.549 bill. Let's start with Title I. This created 00:30:40.549 --> 00:30:43.299 a new category of federal hate crimes. It did. 00:30:43.460 --> 00:30:46.880 It made it a federal crime to injure, intimidate, 00:30:46.880 --> 00:30:48.839 or interfere with someone because of their race, 00:30:48.940 --> 00:30:52.420 color, religion, or national origin. But, and 00:30:52.420 --> 00:30:54.980 this is a key detail, there was a catch. What 00:30:54.980 --> 00:30:57.380 was the catch? The victim had to be engaged in 00:30:57.380 --> 00:31:00.160 one of a specific list of federally protected 00:31:00.160 --> 00:31:02.880 activities at the time of the attack. Okay, so 00:31:02.880 --> 00:31:05.460 what's on that list? What counts as a federally 00:31:05.460 --> 00:31:08.359 protected activity? Things like voting or campaigning 00:31:08.359 --> 00:31:11.589 for a candidate. Attending a public school, applying 00:31:11.589 --> 00:31:14.950 for a job, serving on a jury, traveling from 00:31:14.950 --> 00:31:17.210 one state to another. Things that have a clear 00:31:17.210 --> 00:31:19.950 federal government interest. Exactly. But the 00:31:19.950 --> 00:31:22.009 biggest one, the one that covered the most ground 00:31:22.009 --> 00:31:24.910 in daily life, was enjoying the goods, services, 00:31:25.130 --> 00:31:27.609 or facilities of any place of public accommodation. 00:31:28.130 --> 00:31:31.069 So, eating at a diner. Eating at a diner, staying 00:31:31.069 --> 00:31:33.609 at a motel, going to a movie theater. So let 00:31:33.609 --> 00:31:36.170 me get this straight. If you assault someone 00:31:36.170 --> 00:31:38.579 on the street because they're black, That's a 00:31:38.579 --> 00:31:41.859 state level crime handled by local police. But 00:31:41.859 --> 00:31:44.559 if you assault someone inside a restaurant because 00:31:44.559 --> 00:31:46.900 they're black and they're trying to order a sandwich. 00:31:47.529 --> 00:31:51.069 That is now a federal felony under the 1968 Civil 00:31:51.069 --> 00:31:53.630 Rights Act. You've got it perfectly. That brings 00:31:53.630 --> 00:31:56.210 the FBI into the investigation. And that was 00:31:56.210 --> 00:31:59.250 the whole point, right, to bypass local law enforcement 00:31:59.250 --> 00:32:02.690 in the South that was often unwilling or unable 00:32:02.690 --> 00:32:05.450 to prosecute these kinds of crimes. That was 00:32:05.450 --> 00:32:07.109 the entire point. It gave the federal government 00:32:07.109 --> 00:32:09.269 jurisdiction. Okay, but then we get to Title 00:32:09.269 --> 00:32:13.400 X, the Anti -Riot Act. This is the section that 00:32:13.400 --> 00:32:15.480 feels like it was written with a laser focus, 00:32:15.640 --> 00:32:17.980 directly targeting the people who are protesting 00:32:17.980 --> 00:32:20.420 in the streets. It absolutely was. In fact, it 00:32:20.420 --> 00:32:22.500 was unofficially known as the H. Rapp Brown Law. 00:32:22.700 --> 00:32:25.140 OK, we hear that name a lot in this context. 00:32:25.160 --> 00:32:27.880 But who was H. Rapp Brown? So H. Rapp Brown took 00:32:27.880 --> 00:32:30.279 over as the chairman of the Student Nonviolent 00:32:30.279 --> 00:32:33.500 Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, after Stokely 00:32:33.500 --> 00:32:36.170 Carmichael. He was a very prominent and fiery 00:32:36.170 --> 00:32:39.049 black power advocate, much more militant in his 00:32:39.049 --> 00:32:41.250 rhetoric than someone like Dr. King. And why 00:32:41.250 --> 00:32:43.150 was the law named after him? In the summer of 00:32:43.150 --> 00:32:46.430 1967, he gave a very inflammatory speech in Cambridge, 00:32:46.549 --> 00:32:49.410 Maryland. A riot broke out in the town shortly 00:32:49.410 --> 00:32:52.349 after the speech. He was later arrested on federal 00:32:52.349 --> 00:32:54.450 charges for carrying a gun across state lines 00:32:54.450 --> 00:32:56.950 while he was under indictment for inciting that 00:32:56.950 --> 00:32:59.369 riot. And this played right into the dominant 00:32:59.369 --> 00:33:02.440 narrative at the time of the... outside agitator. 00:33:02.519 --> 00:33:05.180 The perfect narrative. You had southern governors 00:33:05.180 --> 00:33:07.720 and big city mayors who loved to claim that their 00:33:07.720 --> 00:33:10.240 local black populations were perfectly happy 00:33:10.240 --> 00:33:13.099 and content and that all the riots and unrest 00:33:13.099 --> 00:33:15.680 were being caused by these outside agitators, 00:33:15.740 --> 00:33:17.779 communists, radicals from the north who were 00:33:17.779 --> 00:33:20.799 parachuting in just to stir up trouble. So Title 00:33:20.799 --> 00:33:22.900 X essentially turned that political narrative 00:33:22.900 --> 00:33:25.680 into a federal crime. It did. It made it a felony 00:33:25.680 --> 00:33:28.539 to use interstate commerce, which means to travel 00:33:28.539 --> 00:33:31.450 or use the mail or the telephone. or a radio 00:33:31.450 --> 00:33:34.569 broadcast with the intent to incite, organize, 00:33:34.869 --> 00:33:37.490 promote, encourage, or participate in a riot. 00:33:37.650 --> 00:33:39.789 That phrase interstate commerce is doing a lot 00:33:39.789 --> 00:33:41.930 of heavy lifting in that sentence. It's the hook 00:33:41.930 --> 00:33:44.410 that gives the federal government power. And 00:33:44.410 --> 00:33:45.950 today, of course, that includes the internet. 00:33:46.130 --> 00:33:49.309 If you send a tweet or a Facebook post from one 00:33:49.309 --> 00:33:52.130 state to another trying to organize a protest 00:33:52.130 --> 00:33:54.849 that turns violent, you are theoretically in 00:33:54.849 --> 00:33:57.710 the crosshairs of this law from 1968. But this 00:33:57.710 --> 00:33:59.650 seems to run headlong into the First Amendment. 00:34:00.279 --> 00:34:02.380 Where do you draw the line between a passionate, 00:34:02.539 --> 00:34:06.160 fiery political speech and the crime of incitement? 00:34:06.440 --> 00:34:08.739 And that has been the huge legal battleground 00:34:08.739 --> 00:34:11.079 ever since. There's a very famous legal standard 00:34:11.079 --> 00:34:14.360 from a 1969 Supreme Court case called Brandenburg 00:34:14.360 --> 00:34:17.099 v. Ohio. Just a year later. Just a year later. 00:34:17.280 --> 00:34:19.619 And the Brandenburg test says you can't punish 00:34:19.619 --> 00:34:22.000 inflammatory speech unless it is directed to 00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:24.960 inciting imminent lawless action and is likely 00:34:24.960 --> 00:34:27.139 to produce such action. Can you break that down? 00:34:27.420 --> 00:34:29.960 So standing on a stage and saying we need a revolution, 00:34:30.179 --> 00:34:32.119 we should burn this corrupt system down eventually 00:34:32.119 --> 00:34:35.500 is generally protected speech. OK. But pointing 00:34:35.500 --> 00:34:37.380 to it. specific building and saying, let's go 00:34:37.380 --> 00:34:40.199 burn that courthouse down right now is incitement. 00:34:40.280 --> 00:34:42.400 It's the difference between advocating and an 00:34:42.400 --> 00:34:45.619 abstract idea and inciting an imminent specific 00:34:45.619 --> 00:34:48.519 crime. And the courts have had to apply that 00:34:48.519 --> 00:34:51.469 standard to the Anti -Riot Act. They have, and 00:34:51.469 --> 00:34:53.210 it's been a struggle. In fact, very recently, 00:34:53.289 --> 00:34:56.170 in 2020 and 2021, two different federal courts 00:34:56.170 --> 00:34:58.130 of appeals, the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth 00:34:58.130 --> 00:35:00.730 Circuit, actually struck down parts of this law 00:35:00.730 --> 00:35:04.110 as unconstitutional. Really? Which parts? They 00:35:04.110 --> 00:35:06.869 looked at the list of verbs in the statute. One 00:35:06.869 --> 00:35:10.389 of them was to urge a riot. And the court said, 00:35:10.510 --> 00:35:13.429 no, the word urge is too vague. It's too close 00:35:13.429 --> 00:35:15.750 to constitutionally protected political advocacy. 00:35:16.469 --> 00:35:18.590 So they struck down the part of the law that 00:35:18.590 --> 00:35:21.030 banned urging a riot. But they kept the other 00:35:21.030 --> 00:35:24.750 parts. They did. They upheld the bans on inciting, 00:35:24.909 --> 00:35:27.530 organizing, and participating. So if you're a 00:35:27.530 --> 00:35:29.230 protest organizer today, you have to be very 00:35:29.230 --> 00:35:31.489 careful with your verbs. And this law isn't just 00:35:31.489 --> 00:35:33.670 a historical artifact. It's still being used. 00:35:34.070 --> 00:35:36.510 Oh, absolutely. Federal prosecutors used it against 00:35:36.510 --> 00:35:38.170 some of the protesters during the widespread 00:35:38.170 --> 00:35:40.670 demonstrations. in 2020 after the murder of George 00:35:40.670 --> 00:35:43.809 Floyd, it is still a very live wire in American 00:35:43.809 --> 00:35:47.329 law. OK, so let's zoom out. We have this massive, 00:35:47.389 --> 00:35:50.349 complicated document. It opened up the suburbs 00:35:50.349 --> 00:35:53.610 with Title VIII. It applied a modified Bill of 00:35:53.610 --> 00:35:55.690 Rights to Native American tribes with the ICRA. 00:35:56.190 --> 00:35:59.030 And it criminalized the very riots that helped 00:35:59.030 --> 00:36:02.130 get it passed with Title X. 50 plus years later, 00:36:02.210 --> 00:36:04.949 what's the legacy? Did it work? It's such a mixed 00:36:04.949 --> 00:36:07.449 bag. And you almost have to evaluate each part 00:36:07.449 --> 00:36:09.969 separately. So let's start with housing. That's 00:36:09.969 --> 00:36:12.210 the part people know best. On one level, it was 00:36:12.210 --> 00:36:14.949 a profound success. It officially ended the era 00:36:14.949 --> 00:36:18.429 of legal overt housing discrimination. Those 00:36:18.429 --> 00:36:20.949 whites only signs came down. You could no longer 00:36:20.949 --> 00:36:23.690 run a classified ad that said no Jews. That world 00:36:23.690 --> 00:36:25.809 is gone. And that is a direct result of this 00:36:25.809 --> 00:36:28.059 law. But the weak link has always been enforcement. 00:36:28.320 --> 00:36:29.880 Because the government doesn't have an army of 00:36:29.880 --> 00:36:32.039 inspectors checking every single lease application 00:36:32.039 --> 00:36:35.440 in the country. Exactly. The system relies heavily 00:36:35.440 --> 00:36:37.800 on what lawyers call private attorneys general. 00:36:38.000 --> 00:36:40.980 The law is designed for individual victims of 00:36:40.980 --> 00:36:43.579 discrimination to go out, hire their own lawyers 00:36:43.579 --> 00:36:45.719 and sue the landlord or the real estate company. 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:49.400 It creates a private solution to a huge public 00:36:49.400 --> 00:36:52.980 problem. And that assumes the victim knows their 00:36:52.980 --> 00:36:55.539 rights, has the time and the emotional energy 00:36:55.539 --> 00:36:58.380 to pursue a lawsuit. And has the money to hire 00:36:58.380 --> 00:37:01.059 a lawyer, though the 1988 amendments did help 00:37:01.059 --> 00:37:02.980 by allowing successful plaintiffs to recover 00:37:02.980 --> 00:37:05.340 their attorney's fees. But just look at the raw 00:37:05.340 --> 00:37:08.380 numbers. HUD itself estimates that there are 00:37:08.380 --> 00:37:10.800 around 2 million instances of housing discrimination 00:37:10.800 --> 00:37:14.280 every single year in America. The National Fair 00:37:14.280 --> 00:37:17.079 Housing Alliance, a private group, puts the number 00:37:17.079 --> 00:37:20.500 closer to 4 million. 4 million. And how many 00:37:20.500 --> 00:37:22.639 of those actually result in a formal complaint? 00:37:22.920 --> 00:37:26.139 A tiny, tiny fraction, maybe 25 ,000 or 30 ,000 00:37:26.139 --> 00:37:28.300 a year. Because the discrimination isn't overt 00:37:28.300 --> 00:37:31.079 anymore. It's what people call smile discrimination. 00:37:31.260 --> 00:37:33.460 That's the perfect term for it. The landlord 00:37:33.460 --> 00:37:36.340 smiles, shakes your hand, seems very friendly, 00:37:36.400 --> 00:37:38.360 and then says, oh, I'm so sorry, we just rented 00:37:38.360 --> 00:37:41.199 that unit 10 minutes ago. How do you prove that 00:37:41.199 --> 00:37:43.519 was a lie based on your race without going through 00:37:43.519 --> 00:37:45.980 the trouble of hiring testers to check your story? 00:37:46.510 --> 00:37:48.349 For most people, you can't. And there's an even 00:37:48.349 --> 00:37:51.090 deeper, more systemic critique of the law's success, 00:37:51.289 --> 00:37:53.750 right? That even if you get the apartment. Exactly. 00:37:54.050 --> 00:37:56.909 Housing advocates like Elizabeth Julian and Michael 00:37:56.909 --> 00:37:58.969 Daniel have made this point very powerfully. 00:37:59.190 --> 00:38:02.610 They say the act focuses on achieving a unitary 00:38:02.610 --> 00:38:05.150 housing market where money is the only barrier. 00:38:05.570 --> 00:38:08.179 But that's not enough. What do they mean? So 00:38:08.179 --> 00:38:10.440 let's say the law successfully stops a landlord 00:38:10.440 --> 00:38:12.699 from denying you an apartment because of your 00:38:12.699 --> 00:38:15.239 race. But the landlord is still allowed to deny 00:38:15.239 --> 00:38:17.920 you because you have a low credit score or a 00:38:17.920 --> 00:38:20.480 minor criminal record from your youth. And if 00:38:20.480 --> 00:38:23.119 historical and systemic factors have made it 00:38:23.119 --> 00:38:25.179 more likely for certain racial groups to have 00:38:25.179 --> 00:38:28.340 lower credit scores or a criminal record. Then 00:38:28.340 --> 00:38:30.420 you've just laundered the discrimination through 00:38:30.420 --> 00:38:33.340 a seemingly neutral objective spreadsheet. You 00:38:33.340 --> 00:38:34.739 haven't solved the problem. You've just changed 00:38:34.739 --> 00:38:37.230 its name. Precisely. And they make another point. 00:38:37.570 --> 00:38:39.949 Opening the door to a neighborhood doesn't fix 00:38:39.949 --> 00:38:42.429 the neighborhood itself. If a low income minority 00:38:42.429 --> 00:38:44.809 family uses a housing voucher to move into a 00:38:44.809 --> 00:38:47.530 certain area, but that area has crumbling schools, 00:38:48.030 --> 00:38:50.690 lead pipes, no grocery stores and high crime 00:38:50.690 --> 00:38:53.489 rates. Well, the Fair Housing Act didn't cause 00:38:53.489 --> 00:38:55.210 those problems, but it didn't solve them either. 00:38:55.289 --> 00:38:57.789 It just gave you equal access to a disadvantaged 00:38:57.789 --> 00:39:00.489 place. Before we wrap this all up, there was 00:39:00.489 --> 00:39:04.530 one small, almost poetic detail that you found 00:39:04.530 --> 00:39:06.849 buried in the text of the law that I wanted you 00:39:06.849 --> 00:39:09.090 to share. Yeah, this is a real deep cut. It's 00:39:09.090 --> 00:39:10.920 in Title VII, right in the middle. of the Indian 00:39:10.920 --> 00:39:13.579 Civil Rights Act. And it's just this one sentence 00:39:13.579 --> 00:39:16.500 where Congress officially recognizes the centennial 00:39:16.500 --> 00:39:19.679 of the 1868 Treaty of Peace between the Navajo 00:39:19.679 --> 00:39:21.840 tribe and the United States. A hundred years. 00:39:23.090 --> 00:39:26.130 1868 to 1968. And you have to know what that 00:39:26.130 --> 00:39:29.170 1868 treaty was. That was the treaty that allowed 00:39:29.170 --> 00:39:31.250 the Navajo people to return to their ancestral 00:39:31.250 --> 00:39:33.969 homeland after the Long Walk, which was their 00:39:33.969 --> 00:39:37.409 forced removal and exile by the U .S. Army, a 00:39:37.409 --> 00:39:39.570 brutal traumatic event in their history. And 00:39:39.570 --> 00:39:41.889 exactly 100 years later, Congress is passing 00:39:41.889 --> 00:39:44.260 this law. It's this moment where the timeline 00:39:44.260 --> 00:39:46.480 just folds in on itself. You see this hundred 00:39:46.480 --> 00:39:49.619 year arc from forced exile to a treaty recognizing 00:39:49.619 --> 00:39:53.059 their homeland to a federal law in 1968 that's 00:39:53.059 --> 00:39:55.099 trying to redefine what their sovereignty even 00:39:55.099 --> 00:39:57.019 means. It really shows you that history isn't 00:39:57.019 --> 00:39:59.480 a straight line. It's a circle. It's a cycle. 00:39:59.579 --> 00:40:01.480 And we are all still living inside that cycle. 00:40:01.679 --> 00:40:04.260 So that's the Civil Rights Act of 1968. It's 00:40:04.260 --> 00:40:07.139 so much more than just a housing law. It's really 00:40:07.139 --> 00:40:10.900 a snapshot of a nation at a breaking point in 00:40:10.900 --> 00:40:14.650 April of 1968. A nation that was terrified of 00:40:14.650 --> 00:40:17.710 riots, grieving a martyr, trying to fix the suburbs, 00:40:17.889 --> 00:40:19.909 and trying to figure out its relationship with 00:40:19.909 --> 00:40:22.909 native nations all in one chaotic, contradictory 00:40:22.909 --> 00:40:25.829 document. It's a legislative Swiss army knife 00:40:25.829 --> 00:40:28.590 forged in a fire that we are still pulling out 00:40:28.590 --> 00:40:30.630 and using every single day whether we realize 00:40:30.630 --> 00:40:33.090 it or not. And so here's a final provocative 00:40:33.090 --> 00:40:35.530 thought for you to chew on as we finish. The 00:40:35.530 --> 00:40:37.969 act was designed to stop individual acts of discrimination. 00:40:38.349 --> 00:40:40.530 A landlord saying, I won't rent to you because 00:40:40.530 --> 00:40:42.909 of your race. But it wasn't really designed to 00:40:42.909 --> 00:40:44.849 fix the systemic inequality that made you more 00:40:44.849 --> 00:40:46.489 likely to have bad credit in the first place. 00:40:46.650 --> 00:40:49.449 It treats the symptom, not the disease. So the 00:40:49.449 --> 00:40:51.510 question is, if we achieve a world where everyone 00:40:51.510 --> 00:40:53.369 has an equal opportunity to rent an apartment, 00:40:53.510 --> 00:40:56.610 but we still have vast historically driven inequality 00:40:56.610 --> 00:40:59.210 in the ability to pay that rent, is that justice? 00:40:59.690 --> 00:41:01.809 Or is that just capitalism working with perfect, 00:41:01.849 --> 00:41:04.269 brutal efficiency? That is the question that 00:41:04.269 --> 00:41:06.710 the law itself can't answer. That's the one that's 00:41:06.710 --> 00:41:09.000 left for us to figure out. Something to think 00:41:09.000 --> 00:41:11.119 about the next time you walk through your own 00:41:11.119 --> 00:41:13.480 neighborhood and consider how it came to be. 00:41:14.300 --> 00:41:16.460 Thanks for joining us for this deep dive. We'll 00:41:16.460 --> 00:41:17.099 see you next time.