On January 18, we pay our respects to the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, whose leadership is recognized as “fundamental” to the mid-1850s civil rights “movement’s success in ending the legal segregation of African Americans in the South and other parts of the United States” (“Martin Luther King, Jr” ). His “I have A Dream” address delivered on August 28, 1963 is still vibrant to this day, with a call to end racism and an ushering of a post-racial America from a land segregated between the races. Though, can it be said that the “dream” for a post-racial America was satisfied, and our millennial society is free from hatred? It is a controversial matter, that the celebration of a pro-civil rights social activist would be shared with a celebration
…show more content…
Moreover, the Federal Reserve found that the African Americans were “twice as likely to be denied a loan” in 2009, even after “controlling for income and other qualifying criteria” (Flatow, N). Ironically, policy that yielded a “disproportionate adverse outcome for minorities” without “requiring plaintiffs to meet the exceedingly high bar of proving discriminatory intent” were allowed under the Fair Housing Act, the culmination of a civil rights campaign against housing discrimination (Flatow, N). This was only overturned in the year 2015, the age which represents to many an era free from the chains of racism. Adding to the ironic disconnect, this was a result of a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court - it wasn’t an unanimous decision, but a decision that could have been easily tipped against the favor of minorities with a single vote (Badger, E). Garrett Epps from The Atlantic settled on the best description for this decision: “a near-death experience that may produce health problems for the Act down the road” (Epps,
Moreover, the Federal Reserve found that the African Americans were “twice as likely to be denied a loan” in 2009, even after “controlling for income and other qualifying criteria” (Flatow, N). Ironically, policy that yielded a “disproportionate adverse outcome for minorities” without “requiring plaintiffs to meet the exceedingly high bar of proving discriminatory intent” were allowed under the Fair Housing Act, the culmination of a civil rights campaign against housing discrimination (Flatow, N). This was only overturned in the year 2015, the age which represents to many an era free from the chains of racism. Adding to the ironic disconnect, this was a result of a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court - it wasn’t an unanimous decision, but a decision that could have been easily tipped against the favor of minorities with a single vote (Badger, E). Garrett Epps from The Atlantic settled on the best description for this decision: “a near-death experience that may produce health problems for the Act down the road” (Epps,