Popular in Law

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Constitutional Law

What is constitutional ideology?

University of Oxford Nick Barber

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

The Architecture of Desire

View more insights in Books - Professional - Law - Family Law

View more figures from Seton Hall University

View the page of Solangel Maldonado

Read the Study

Next in Books

Freedom’s Dominion

Jefferson Cowie | Vanderbilt University

Queer Lasting: Ecologies of Care for a Dying World

Sarah Ensor | University of Wisconsin Madison

Solangel Maldonado discusses how law shapes our intimate partner choices and its psychological, economic, and social impacts.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 14, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The speaker reflects on a long-term contemplation of racial dynamics, particularly in romantic relationships, over the past decade. They observed within their Latino family context that relationships with white partners were common, while there was a notable absence of African American partners. This video video led to the realization that many had internalized societal messages that favored whiteness over blackness, influenced by family, media, and cultural upbringing.

The speaker explores sociological research indicating that race significantly shapes partner preferences in both online and offline settings. Interracial marriages have increased from 3% in 1967 to 19% in 2019 in the U.S. Yet, certain groups, notably African Americans, still experience barriers in interracial dating. Structural factors such as the law have historically dictated racial classifications and relationships. Anti-miscegenation laws served to uphold racial hierarchies, creating societal perceptions that certain racial partners are less desirable.

The speaker emphasizes the role of law in reinforcing racial barriers and stereotypes, with examples illustrating how laws transformed societal views on race. They discuss how racial preferences became ingrained through legal frameworks affecting education, housing, and neighborhoods, leading to segregation and unequal opportunities.

Additionally, the speaker scrutinizes contemporary societal conditions perpetuating racial divisions, such as zoning laws and systemic inequities in education. These disparities contribute to psychological distances that hinder interracial relationship formation. Online dating platforms also reflect these biases through features allowing users to exclude potential partners based on race.

The talk culminates in a call for policy change to dismantle systemic barriers to interracial intimacy, advocating for an interrogation of personal preferences shaped by legal and structural factors. The ultimate aim is to create a society where intimacy across races is normalized and equitable, breaking down enduring inequalities. The speaker encourages dialogue across diverse fields to better understand and address these interconnected issues of law, intimacy, and inequality.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.115 --> 00:00:02.205
I've been thinking about this book for about 10 years.

2
00:00:02.665 --> 00:00:04.965
And it was then that I noticed that many

3
00:00:04.965 --> 00:00:06.525
of my family members and my,

4
00:00:06.625 --> 00:00:08.845
my partner's family members were both Latino,

5
00:00:09.315 --> 00:00:11.765
were in committed relationships with white partners,

6
00:00:11.865 --> 00:00:13.965
but none had African American partners.

7
00:00:14.385 --> 00:00:15.725
And this was a bit puzzling

8
00:00:15.725 --> 00:00:18.605
because we were already in predominantly minority

9
00:00:18.605 --> 00:00:20.085
neighborhoods, you know, meaning

10
00:00:20.155 --> 00:00:22.805
with mostly African Americans, and Latinos.

11
00:00:23.225 --> 00:00:25.285
Um, and so we didn't have any white neighbors,

12
00:00:25.345 --> 00:00:27.045
any white classmates, any white friends.

13
00:00:27.665 --> 00:00:31.685
But what we were all taught as children, is

14
00:00:31.685 --> 00:00:35.245
that whiteness was better, that light skin tone and,

15
00:00:35.385 --> 00:00:36.965
and whiteness was just better.

16
00:00:37.145 --> 00:00:39.445
And these messages were gleaned from family

17
00:00:39.445 --> 00:00:40.925
members, from from the media.

18
00:00:41.705 --> 00:00:44.565
And then about 10 years ago, in these conversations

19
00:00:44.565 --> 00:00:47.085
with family members, it became very clear

20
00:00:47.635 --> 00:00:51.645
that many had internalized the message that a white partner

21
00:00:51.945 --> 00:00:54.125
or committed relationship was preferable

22
00:00:54.125 --> 00:00:55.845
to an African Am American partner.

23
00:00:56.425 --> 00:00:59.325
So I started looking at the work of some sociologists

24
00:00:59.385 --> 00:01:01.565
who were exploring individual's,

25
00:01:01.565 --> 00:01:04.045
preferences in the dating market, both online

26
00:01:04.345 --> 00:01:06.205
and offline, like speed dating.

27
00:01:06.665 --> 00:01:09.365
And what I learned is that race is a primary factor

28
00:01:09.475 --> 00:01:10.925
when choosing, a partner.

29
00:01:11.385 --> 00:01:13.845
Um, and these preferences are reflected in the data

30
00:01:13.905 --> 00:01:15.205
and interracial marriages.

31
00:01:15.505 --> 00:01:17.765
And just to give you a, you know, just a little a, a,

32
00:01:17.885 --> 00:01:22.045
a flavor of the data, in 1967, just 3%

33
00:01:22.045 --> 00:01:24.125
of marriages in the US were interracial.

34
00:01:24.545 --> 00:01:29.485
In 2019, 19% of new marriages, were between persons

35
00:01:29.485 --> 00:01:32.085
of different races or between Latinos and non Latinos.

36
00:01:32.165 --> 00:01:35.365
I mean, the US Census, does not treat Latinos as a race,

37
00:01:35.785 --> 00:01:37.645
but for purposes of marriage, you know,

38
00:01:37.705 --> 00:01:39.685
all the data treats Latinos as a race.

39
00:01:40.225 --> 00:01:43.285
Um, but this increase from three to 19%.

40
00:01:43.445 --> 00:01:45.045
I mean, that is really significant.

41
00:01:45.545 --> 00:01:47.845
But what we know from, studies have been

42
00:01:47.845 --> 00:01:48.845
that have been done at Columbia

43
00:01:49.145 --> 00:01:52.765
and other places, Columbia University, is that,

44
00:01:52.985 --> 00:01:55.965
if race didn't matter, about 44%

45
00:01:55.965 --> 00:01:58.045
of all marriages will be interracial.

46
00:01:58.545 --> 00:02:02.245
And that becomes the role of law, sort

47
00:02:02.245 --> 00:02:04.365
of shaping our inter intimate preferences.

48
00:02:04.785 --> 00:02:06.405
Um, you start to see that a lot more

49
00:02:06.405 --> 00:02:07.605
when you also look at gender.

50
00:02:08.345 --> 00:02:10.485
Um, so currently more than one third

51
00:02:10.785 --> 00:02:12.765
of us born Asian Americans

52
00:02:12.765 --> 00:02:16.085
and Latinos, marry out mostly with whites.

53
00:02:16.385 --> 00:02:20.005
But in contrast, only 18% of African Americans marry out.

54
00:02:20.305 --> 00:02:23.405
But this contrast is even starker one considers gender.

55
00:02:23.665 --> 00:02:27.245
So US born Asian American women are four times as likely

56
00:02:27.465 --> 00:02:29.925
as African American, women

57
00:02:30.465 --> 00:02:32.205
to marry someone of a different race.

58
00:02:32.545 --> 00:02:35.125
Now, this is all really interesting from a sociological

59
00:02:35.255 --> 00:02:37.805
standpoint, but I'm a lawyer, I'm a law professor.

60
00:02:38.105 --> 00:02:39.485
So I was really interested in

61
00:02:39.485 --> 00:02:42.445
how the law specifically has influenced our preferences

62
00:02:42.545 --> 00:02:43.805
for partners of different races,

63
00:02:44.145 --> 00:02:47.485
and has signaled that, you know, for partner,

64
00:02:47.555 --> 00:02:49.045
that signal that that partners

65
00:02:49.045 --> 00:02:51.725
of certain races are less desirable, less appealing,

66
00:02:52.065 --> 00:02:54.245
or just downright, inappropriate.

67
00:02:54.665 --> 00:02:56.885
So that's why I really started looking at, well,

68
00:02:56.995 --> 00:02:58.005
what has law done?

69
00:02:58.235 --> 00:03:00.445
This is my first, book.

70
00:03:00.665 --> 00:03:02.125
Um, I have a couple of case books,

71
00:03:02.145 --> 00:03:05.005
but this is sort of the first, you know, humongous project.

72
00:03:05.865 --> 00:03:08.045
And because the book explores

73
00:03:08.145 --> 00:03:10.445
how the law shaped our preferences historically

74
00:03:10.665 --> 00:03:12.685
and how it continues to shape them today,

75
00:03:13.225 --> 00:03:15.885
the research is both historical and contemporary.

76
00:03:16.305 --> 00:03:18.525
So I went back, way back,

77
00:03:18.625 --> 00:03:20.565
to the first anti miscegenation laws

78
00:03:20.565 --> 00:03:22.365
that were enacted in colonial Maryland

79
00:03:22.785 --> 00:03:24.845
and Virginia in the 17th century.

80
00:03:25.465 --> 00:03:28.685
Now, these laws were enacted, to facilitate

81
00:03:28.685 --> 00:03:30.845
and perpetuate slavery based on race.

82
00:03:31.265 --> 00:03:33.325
So, for example, Maryland's law

83
00:03:34.285 --> 00:03:36.485
provided that a white person who married,

84
00:03:36.605 --> 00:03:38.405
a black slave would be enslaved

85
00:03:38.455 --> 00:03:40.245
themselves, and so would their children.

86
00:03:40.825 --> 00:03:44.925
Um, I was very, I I learned so much from the work

87
00:03:44.925 --> 00:03:47.805
of historians such as Peggy Pasco,

88
00:03:47.905 --> 00:03:50.765
who has a superb analysis of anti-national laws

89
00:03:51.025 --> 00:03:54.005
and cases starting in the, in the 17th century

90
00:03:54.105 --> 00:03:56.365
and going all the way through the 20th century.

91
00:03:57.165 --> 00:03:58.205
I also relied on the work

92
00:03:58.205 --> 00:04:01.325
of legal scholars like Rachel Moran, who first

93
00:04:02.205 --> 00:04:03.685
explored the law's regulation

94
00:04:03.685 --> 00:04:06.125
of interracial intimacy more than 20 years ago

95
00:04:06.505 --> 00:04:09.805
before online dating transformed how we meet and,

96
00:04:09.805 --> 00:04:11.325
and find our intimate partners.

97
00:04:11.985 --> 00:04:15.045
Um, I teach critical race theory, so I also engaged

98
00:04:15.115 --> 00:04:18.525
with critical race scholars such as Ian Haney, Lopez Royce,

99
00:04:18.755 --> 00:04:22.405
Cuan vor, who have uncovered how federal laws

100
00:04:22.545 --> 00:04:24.005
and specifically immigration

101
00:04:24.005 --> 00:04:27.445
and nationalization laws kept racial groups out of the us,

102
00:04:27.455 --> 00:04:29.565
which of course then impacts the composition

103
00:04:29.565 --> 00:04:31.245
of the population,

104
00:04:31.345 --> 00:04:33.685
and the pool of potential, partners.

105
00:04:34.225 --> 00:04:37.645
Um, I delved into the Supreme Court cases

106
00:04:37.875 --> 00:04:41.245
that uphold racial discrimination, that have uphold,

107
00:04:41.345 --> 00:04:44.885
upheld racial discrimination in myriad contexts,

108
00:04:44.885 --> 00:04:48.485
including, contexts like interracial intimacy,

109
00:04:48.945 --> 00:04:52.725
public accommodations, residential segregation,

110
00:04:52.865 --> 00:04:56.485
naturalization citizenship, and educational segregation.

111
00:04:56.505 --> 00:04:58.605
So a lot of, you know, sort of heavy reading of,

112
00:04:58.605 --> 00:05:00.565
of case law, but one

113
00:05:00.565 --> 00:05:03.085
of the things I was particularly interested in is

114
00:05:03.085 --> 00:05:05.525
how the law defined racial categories,

115
00:05:05.865 --> 00:05:07.765
but how these definitions were fluid

116
00:05:08.145 --> 00:05:11.445
and they shifted, they moved based on the political

117
00:05:11.445 --> 00:05:12.965
and economic interests of white men.

118
00:05:13.465 --> 00:05:15.685
So just, a couple of examples.

119
00:05:15.945 --> 00:05:18.645
So, Virginia treated African,

120
00:05:18.645 --> 00:05:22.325
treated American Indian ancestry differently from African

121
00:05:22.685 --> 00:05:24.605
American ancestry because it wanted

122
00:05:24.605 --> 00:05:27.525
to recognize the descendants of Pocahontas.

123
00:05:27.705 --> 00:05:32.445
And John Rofe as, as white Oregons also treated,

124
00:05:33.125 --> 00:05:35.365
American Indian ancestry differently than,

125
00:05:35.365 --> 00:05:37.365
African American or Chinese ancestry

126
00:05:37.435 --> 00:05:40.325
because it wanted to protect the, the economic interest

127
00:05:40.545 --> 00:05:43.565
of the children of white men with American Indian women.

128
00:05:44.225 --> 00:05:47.325
Um, another example, Mexicans were subjected

129
00:05:47.325 --> 00:05:50.445
to discrimination and segregation in housing and education

130
00:05:50.985 --> 00:05:53.085
and in public accommodations throughout most

131
00:05:53.085 --> 00:05:54.085
of the 20th century.

132
00:05:54.475 --> 00:05:58.005
However, as a result of a treaty, the Treaty of Guadalupe,

133
00:05:58.805 --> 00:06:00.365
Mexicans were legally white,

134
00:06:00.705 --> 00:06:03.085
and thus they were prohibited from marrying African

135
00:06:03.525 --> 00:06:06.325
Americans, even though in their day-to-day lives,

136
00:06:06.795 --> 00:06:10.285
they were treated just as poorly as African Americans.

137
00:06:10.745 --> 00:06:14.405
And then just one final example of how the law, you know,

138
00:06:14.405 --> 00:06:16.965
the, the, the racial categories were just fluid.

139
00:06:17.545 --> 00:06:21.165
Um, some states prohibited marriages between whites

140
00:06:21.165 --> 00:06:22.165
and certain Asian groups,

141
00:06:22.745 --> 00:06:24.925
but the question of which Asian groups,

142
00:06:25.225 --> 00:06:28.685
whites were prohibited from marrying varied by state,

143
00:06:29.185 --> 00:06:33.365
by era, you know, the, the decade and political interests.

144
00:06:33.745 --> 00:06:36.685
And so the work of legal scholars such as Kevin Malar,

145
00:06:36.685 --> 00:06:39.445
Lauren Gomez, Larry Vol, and George Martinez,

146
00:06:39.665 --> 00:06:42.005
and also historians such as Erica Lee,

147
00:06:42.355 --> 00:06:45.445
they were just invaluable as I explored this legal history.

148
00:06:45.625 --> 00:06:47.285
And then finally, you know, my,

149
00:06:47.305 --> 00:06:50.085
my focus on the laws influence really required

150
00:06:50.085 --> 00:06:53.765
that I studied these structural barriers that indirectly,

151
00:06:54.085 --> 00:06:57.005
although sometimes intentionally discourage into

152
00:06:57.075 --> 00:06:58.605
interracial, relationships.

153
00:06:58.625 --> 00:06:59.845
So I had to look at those barriers.

154
00:07:00.265 --> 00:07:03.685
So I, I studied how the spaces in which we live, work

155
00:07:03.705 --> 00:07:05.925
and play shape our intimate pre,

156
00:07:05.925 --> 00:07:07.445
preferences and constrain our choices.

157
00:07:08.025 --> 00:07:10.525
So the work of historians such as,

158
00:07:10.525 --> 00:07:12.685
Richard Rothstein helped me understand

159
00:07:12.745 --> 00:07:15.325
how the government created segregated neighborhoods

160
00:07:15.635 --> 00:07:17.725
that not only kept racial groups apart,

161
00:07:18.225 --> 00:07:20.365
but also contributed to the racial wealth gap

162
00:07:20.665 --> 00:07:23.645
and the educational achievement gap that continues today

163
00:07:24.145 --> 00:07:26.405
and hinders interracial, intimacy.

164
00:07:26.845 --> 00:07:28.725
I have to say that this, this was quite challenging

165
00:07:28.755 --> 00:07:31.685
because I'm starting by looking at anti slavery

166
00:07:31.745 --> 00:07:33.125
and anti miscegenation laws

167
00:07:33.345 --> 00:07:34.565
and, you know, arguing

168
00:07:34.835 --> 00:07:37.165
that they impact our relationships today.

169
00:07:37.825 --> 00:07:40.205
And so, as I said before, slavery

170
00:07:40.385 --> 00:07:43.445
and the anti miscegenation laws that were first enacted

171
00:07:43.445 --> 00:07:46.445
to facilitate slavery along with racial

172
00:07:46.505 --> 00:07:48.605
and discriminatory immigration laws

173
00:07:48.705 --> 00:07:52.325
and segregation, they shaped societal assumptions about

174
00:07:52.325 --> 00:07:53.525
racial and ethnic groups.

175
00:07:53.945 --> 00:07:57.525
And they signaled and continue to signal today that members

176
00:07:57.545 --> 00:08:00.165
of certain groups are just not suitable long-term partners.

177
00:08:00.585 --> 00:08:04.885
Um, and so when we think about today, the majority

178
00:08:04.885 --> 00:08:08.965
of Americans now expressly reject white supremacy.

179
00:08:09.625 --> 00:08:11.725
But the ideas about racial difference

180
00:08:11.725 --> 00:08:14.805
and hierarchy, they are just embedded in our subconscious.

181
00:08:15.305 --> 00:08:18.845
And, and here, I look at the work of Ian Haney Lopez,

182
00:08:19.025 --> 00:08:21.405
who has argued that this is, this is a quote

183
00:08:21.755 --> 00:08:25.685
that the law has translated ideas about race into the

184
00:08:25.925 --> 00:08:28.445
material, societal conditions that confirm

185
00:08:28.545 --> 00:08:29.725
and entrench those ideas.

186
00:08:30.305 --> 00:08:31.605
And so discrimination,

187
00:08:31.695 --> 00:08:34.565
legal discrimination created the conditions

188
00:08:34.595 --> 00:08:37.925
that reinforce societal beliefs about the intelligence,

189
00:08:38.265 --> 00:08:41.445
the work ethic, and the character of racial minorities.

190
00:08:41.825 --> 00:08:43.525
So today, for example,

191
00:08:43.675 --> 00:08:46.445
there's still many negative stereotypes about African

192
00:08:46.845 --> 00:08:47.885
Americans and Latinos,

193
00:08:48.185 --> 00:08:51.605
and studies have found that people have unconscious beliefs

194
00:08:51.875 --> 00:08:54.725
that these groups are lazy and they're less intelligent.

195
00:08:55.185 --> 00:08:57.565
Now, in the past, the law shaped these beliefs

196
00:08:57.955 --> 00:08:59.645
through explicit messages.

197
00:08:59.705 --> 00:09:03.525
For example, labeling Latinos as an undesirable, but,

198
00:09:03.585 --> 00:09:05.885
but exploitable race, for example.

199
00:09:06.345 --> 00:09:08.925
But the law also shaped these beliefs through actions.

200
00:09:09.305 --> 00:09:11.285
So by denying African American

201
00:09:11.305 --> 00:09:14.165
and Latino children equal access to education,

202
00:09:14.175 --> 00:09:16.245
which it still does there,

203
00:09:16.305 --> 00:09:18.005
and thereby limiting their opportunities

204
00:09:18.185 --> 00:09:22.365
to pursue higher education, to pursue, careers,

205
00:09:22.705 --> 00:09:24.965
to own a home, to reside in neighborhoods

206
00:09:24.965 --> 00:09:26.125
with desirable services,

207
00:09:26.585 --> 00:09:28.085
and to acquire the resources

208
00:09:28.085 --> 00:09:30.485
that most people consider important when

209
00:09:30.645 --> 00:09:31.725
choosing a life partners.

210
00:09:32.185 --> 00:09:36.085
So these conditions serve to legitimize societal beliefs

211
00:09:36.435 --> 00:09:38.005
that of African-Americans

212
00:09:38.005 --> 00:09:40.845
and Latinos, for example, are not as motivated

213
00:09:40.865 --> 00:09:43.005
or as hardworking as, as other groups.

214
00:09:44.145 --> 00:09:48.285
Um, another example, some Americans still associate

215
00:09:48.945 --> 00:09:51.685
African-Americans and Latinos with criminality, you know,

216
00:09:51.685 --> 00:09:54.445
with a disposition to engage in criminal behavior.

217
00:09:55.105 --> 00:09:58.125
Um, and, but the law was instrumental in creating this

218
00:09:58.155 --> 00:10:01.405
association through slavery, with its enactment

219
00:10:01.405 --> 00:10:04.885
of slave codes and later enactment of, of, of black codes

220
00:10:05.035 --> 00:10:07.925
that criminalized routine activities when engaged in

221
00:10:07.925 --> 00:10:09.005
by African Americans.

222
00:10:09.345 --> 00:10:11.445
Um, it did the same thing with Latinos.

223
00:10:11.445 --> 00:10:14.045
You know, as I just said, Latinos were, were,

224
00:10:14.155 --> 00:10:15.885
were seen as the law.

225
00:10:15.885 --> 00:10:18.845
There were statute that, that, legislative history

226
00:10:19.275 --> 00:10:22.125
that stated that Latinos, that Mexican Americans

227
00:10:22.185 --> 00:10:25.205
and immigrants from Latin America were an undesirable

228
00:10:25.465 --> 00:10:26.725
but exploitable race.

229
00:10:27.305 --> 00:10:28.445
Um, and,

230
00:10:28.505 --> 00:10:31.485
and what we see today is that legal actors continue

231
00:10:31.505 --> 00:10:33.565
to perpetuate this perception

232
00:10:33.625 --> 00:10:35.965
of criminality when they elicit

233
00:10:35.965 --> 00:10:39.125
and rely upon racial stereotypes in, in cases,

234
00:10:39.145 --> 00:10:40.605
in criminal cases, for example.

235
00:10:41.105 --> 00:10:43.365
Um, in addition, again, going back to sort

236
00:10:43.365 --> 00:10:46.685
of the conditions, the disproportionately high percentage

237
00:10:47.025 --> 00:10:48.845
of Latinos and African Americans

238
00:10:48.845 --> 00:10:50.725
that reside in high crime neighborhoods,

239
00:10:50.935 --> 00:10:53.005
which is a direct result of decades

240
00:10:53.185 --> 00:10:54.965
of government sanction segregation.

241
00:10:55.315 --> 00:10:58.765
Well, this further reinforces societal beliefs about black

242
00:10:59.045 --> 00:11:00.845
criminality, Latino, black

243
00:11:00.845 --> 00:11:02.245
and la Latino criminality.

244
00:11:02.865 --> 00:11:05.485
Um, and I just wanna point out that politicians

245
00:11:05.485 --> 00:11:08.205
and lawmakers are aware of the power

246
00:11:08.205 --> 00:11:11.285
of these stereotypes even today, and they exploit them.

247
00:11:11.345 --> 00:11:14.805
And so just, you know, when discussing welfare reform,

248
00:11:14.905 --> 00:11:18.245
for example, Ronald Reagan,

249
00:11:18.245 --> 00:11:19.845
president presidential candidate,

250
00:11:19.845 --> 00:11:22.405
Ronald Reagan talked about welfare queens,

251
00:11:22.985 --> 00:11:25.445
and it was, he did not have to talk about race,

252
00:11:25.545 --> 00:11:29.485
but he knew that he was eliciting stereotypes about,

253
00:11:29.485 --> 00:11:32.325
African Americans as lazy or having a poor work ethic,

254
00:11:32.785 --> 00:11:35.365
or when Donald Trump more recently asserted

255
00:11:35.365 --> 00:11:38.405
that Mexico was sending us bad ombres and rapists

256
00:11:38.405 --> 00:11:39.485
and criminals to the us.

257
00:11:39.925 --> 00:11:42.645
I mean, obviously he was relying on these stereotypes

258
00:11:42.645 --> 00:11:46.685
of Latinos as, as criminals, not to limit it

259
00:11:46.685 --> 00:11:48.645
to just Latinos and African Americans.

260
00:11:49.045 --> 00:11:51.245
I think we also need to look at

261
00:11:51.265 --> 00:11:54.085
how the law has shaped societal beliefs about Asian

262
00:11:54.445 --> 00:11:55.965
Americans that persist today.

263
00:11:56.625 --> 00:11:59.565
So there are many positive stereotypes about Asian

264
00:11:59.885 --> 00:12:01.885
Americans, that they're smart, they're hardworking,

265
00:12:02.345 --> 00:12:05.165
but they're also the stereotype of Asian Americans

266
00:12:05.265 --> 00:12:06.885
as conniving in disloyal.

267
00:12:07.025 --> 00:12:10.525
And these were traits that lawmakers ascribed to members

268
00:12:10.545 --> 00:12:13.165
of Asian groups since the late 19th century.

269
00:12:13.525 --> 00:12:15.165
I mean, there are case law, there's cases

270
00:12:15.535 --> 00:12:18.245
where Asian Americans are described as, as you know,

271
00:12:18.245 --> 00:12:19.285
in such negative terms.

272
00:12:19.865 --> 00:12:23.325
Um, the law also started the Supreme Court, for example,

273
00:12:23.675 --> 00:12:26.565
that Asians could never assimilate into the,

274
00:12:26.675 --> 00:12:27.925
into the US population.

275
00:12:28.465 --> 00:12:31.085
And this, you know, this notion of Asians

276
00:12:31.105 --> 00:12:34.925
as perpetual foreigners as un assimilable were u was used

277
00:12:34.925 --> 00:12:37.325
as a justification to exclude them

278
00:12:37.345 --> 00:12:39.485
for racially discriminatory immigration laws.

279
00:12:40.065 --> 00:12:43.365
But this, the, the effects of this depiction of Asians

280
00:12:43.385 --> 00:12:44.405
as un assimilable

281
00:12:44.545 --> 00:12:47.845
or as perpetual foreigners continues today.

282
00:12:48.545 --> 00:12:50.325
And we have a very recent example.

283
00:12:50.745 --> 00:12:54.285
So during the Covid pandemic, Asian Americans were blamed,

284
00:12:54.285 --> 00:12:56.805
you know, some Americans blamed Asian Americans

285
00:12:56.825 --> 00:12:59.005
for the nine, for the COVID-19 pandemic.

286
00:12:59.455 --> 00:13:03.405
Asian Americans were, were victims of, were subjected

287
00:13:03.405 --> 00:13:06.325
to racially motivated violence, told to go back to

288
00:13:06.325 --> 00:13:07.365
where they came from,

289
00:13:07.785 --> 00:13:10.565
and basically told that you can never be an American.

290
00:13:11.035 --> 00:13:14.925
Well, these stereotypes that the law helped to create

291
00:13:15.145 --> 00:13:17.725
and cement shape our perceptions of

292
00:13:17.725 --> 00:13:19.965
who is a desirable partner,

293
00:13:20.545 --> 00:13:23.565
and you know, who, who we want to bring into our families.

294
00:13:23.595 --> 00:13:26.845
There's just so many ways in which the law,

295
00:13:26.985 --> 00:13:29.685
has shaped our romantic, preferences.

296
00:13:30.225 --> 00:13:32.525
And that is, I mean, the law has,

297
00:13:32.665 --> 00:13:36.005
has facilitated segregation in virtually every

298
00:13:36.005 --> 00:13:37.365
sector of our, of our lives.

299
00:13:37.865 --> 00:13:38.965
So our neighborhoods

300
00:13:39.025 --> 00:13:41.925
and our schools are segregated as a result of legally

301
00:13:42.445 --> 00:13:46.405
sanctioned practices such as redlining, racial steering,

302
00:13:46.945 --> 00:13:48.725
racially restrictive covenants

303
00:13:48.875 --> 00:13:51.365
that were in effect throughout most of the 20th century.

304
00:13:52.225 --> 00:13:55.485
But I think really importantly, current policies

305
00:13:55.795 --> 00:13:59.045
that we often don't think about, you know, shaping sort

306
00:13:59.045 --> 00:14:01.805
of our romantic preferences, these policies, you know,

307
00:14:01.805 --> 00:14:03.485
that are in fact, in effect today,

308
00:14:03.905 --> 00:14:05.965
do shape our intimate preferences,

309
00:14:06.145 --> 00:14:10.165
and they limit our ability to meet people of other races

310
00:14:10.165 --> 00:14:12.365
and interact with 'em, as equals.

311
00:14:12.585 --> 00:14:15.365
So, for example, single family zoning, something

312
00:14:15.365 --> 00:14:17.845
that property scholars have talked a lot about,

313
00:14:17.945 --> 00:14:22.165
the Mrs. Murphy, exception, which is, this exception

314
00:14:22.165 --> 00:14:27.005
to fair housing laws that allows for the owner of, of a,

315
00:14:27.005 --> 00:14:30.325
of a multi-family dwelling of, you know, four,

316
00:14:30.505 --> 00:14:33.925
or fewer, units to discriminate on the basis of race

317
00:14:33.985 --> 00:14:35.765
and other categories, if

318
00:14:35.765 --> 00:14:37.565
that owner actually lives there,

319
00:14:37.625 --> 00:14:41.485
the school assignment system that, that sends children

320
00:14:41.585 --> 00:14:43.685
to schools in their, to their local schools.

321
00:14:43.955 --> 00:14:45.765
Well, if neighborhoods are segregated,

322
00:14:45.765 --> 00:14:48.525
then the local schools are obviously going to be segregated.

323
00:14:48.715 --> 00:14:51.045
Well, that's another way that we perpetuate,

324
00:14:51.405 --> 00:14:55.125
segregation, and limit the ability of, of children

325
00:14:55.185 --> 00:14:57.525
of different races to meet and, and play

326
00:14:57.585 --> 00:14:59.005
and study together,

327
00:14:59.005 --> 00:15:01.405
and eventually, you know, develop relationships.

328
00:15:01.825 --> 00:15:04.445
And finally, spatial segregation that our spaces

329
00:15:05.105 --> 00:15:07.005
are very much racialized.

330
00:15:07.345 --> 00:15:08.565
And so all of these,

331
00:15:08.745 --> 00:15:11.125
and I'll talk about these a little bit in a, in in a minute,

332
00:15:11.505 --> 00:15:13.205
they perpetuate physical

333
00:15:13.225 --> 00:15:15.565
and psychological distance between racial groups,

334
00:15:15.865 --> 00:15:17.085
and they limit opportunities

335
00:15:17.505 --> 00:15:19.165
for interracial, relationships.

336
00:15:19.785 --> 00:15:23.245
So, so for example, the, the single family zoning,

337
00:15:23.555 --> 00:15:27.525
also known as exclusionary zoning, allow, you know,

338
00:15:27.785 --> 00:15:32.725
allows, for only single family home to be located in, in

339
00:15:33.285 --> 00:15:36.685
actually in 75% of, of, sort

340
00:15:36.685 --> 00:15:39.365
of residential land in the US is limited

341
00:15:39.745 --> 00:15:41.285
to single family homes.

342
00:15:41.865 --> 00:15:46.045
And I mean, this really, we know that, racial minorities

343
00:15:46.585 --> 00:15:50.045
are much less likely to be than, than whites to be able

344
00:15:50.045 --> 00:15:52.965
to afford, a single, family home.

345
00:15:52.965 --> 00:15:54.365
They're much more likely to be renters

346
00:15:54.545 --> 00:15:57.165
and much more likely to live in two family,

347
00:15:57.215 --> 00:15:58.565
three family, homes.

348
00:15:59.105 --> 00:16:03.605
Um, so single family zoning keeps people of color,

349
00:16:04.085 --> 00:16:06.045
specifically African Americans and,

350
00:16:06.185 --> 00:16:09.565
and Latinos out of, white,

351
00:16:09.565 --> 00:16:11.725
predominantly white, suburbs.

352
00:16:12.065 --> 00:16:13.245
Um, and,

353
00:16:13.465 --> 00:16:15.885
and this is all part of the, the racial wealth gap

354
00:16:15.885 --> 00:16:18.085
that placed home ownership out of the reach

355
00:16:18.145 --> 00:16:20.045
of many African Americans and Latinos.

356
00:16:20.505 --> 00:16:22.885
Um, I talked about the Mrs. Murphy, exception.

357
00:16:23.755 --> 00:16:25.445
Well, when you, when you,

358
00:16:26.185 --> 00:16:29.165
if you live in a big city like New York City, San Francisco,

359
00:16:29.415 --> 00:16:32.885
maybe you think, well, most that's not going to apply

360
00:16:32.885 --> 00:16:35.645
to most people because mo, you know, so much

361
00:16:35.645 --> 00:16:38.125
of the housing is, is, you know, huge high rises.

362
00:16:38.465 --> 00:16:41.285
But throughout most of America, a lot of the rental

363
00:16:42.275 --> 00:16:45.525
housing is in 2, 3, 4 family homes.

364
00:16:45.945 --> 00:16:48.645
And so it really could have a huge impact on individuals

365
00:16:48.835 --> 00:16:51.405
when the owner of that home can discriminate on the basis

366
00:16:51.425 --> 00:16:53.325
of race or other, categories.

367
00:16:53.505 --> 00:16:56.725
But I think also importantly, this Mrs. Murphy exception

368
00:16:56.725 --> 00:16:59.845
to Fair Housing sends the message that it's okay

369
00:16:59.845 --> 00:17:03.605
to discriminate as long as it's in the intimate, sphere.

370
00:17:04.185 --> 00:17:06.765
As I mentioned, the school assignment system, you know, that

371
00:17:06.765 --> 00:17:08.725
that sends children, 80%

372
00:17:08.725 --> 00:17:10.965
of children attend schools in their, you know,

373
00:17:10.965 --> 00:17:14.885
basically close to home, which seems to make sense, except

374
00:17:14.885 --> 00:17:16.405
that if our neighborhoods are segregated

375
00:17:16.625 --> 00:17:19.405
and now children have to go to those segregated schools,

376
00:17:19.995 --> 00:17:22.885
then it means that that children,

377
00:17:22.915 --> 00:17:26.085
from kindergarten all the way through 12th grade are going

378
00:17:26.085 --> 00:17:29.085
to be going to, are going to basically be in segregated,

379
00:17:29.105 --> 00:17:30.485
in segregated schools.

380
00:17:30.865 --> 00:17:33.405
And this really contributes to the achievement gap

381
00:17:33.435 --> 00:17:35.325
because we know that,

382
00:17:36.315 --> 00:17:39.165
generally schools in white suburbs tend

383
00:17:39.165 --> 00:17:40.925
to be better resourced, have,

384
00:17:41.025 --> 00:17:44.365
and just have higher, quality teachers,

385
00:17:44.395 --> 00:17:45.605
smaller classrooms

386
00:17:46.065 --> 00:17:48.045
and schools in high poverty,

387
00:17:48.045 --> 00:17:49.765
predominantly minority neighborhoods

388
00:17:50.055 --> 00:17:51.205
don't have those resources.

389
00:17:51.225 --> 00:17:53.965
So it creates this educational, this,

390
00:17:53.995 --> 00:17:55.685
this achievement, gap.

391
00:17:56.195 --> 00:17:58.965
They also, these schools also create a psychological

392
00:17:59.445 --> 00:18:02.445
distance between groups, between racial groups, such

393
00:18:02.445 --> 00:18:05.965
that when these children now go to college, if even if,

394
00:18:06.275 --> 00:18:09.085
even if despite the achievement gap, they're able to go

395
00:18:09.085 --> 00:18:12.325
to college, and let's say they go to the uni, a university

396
00:18:12.325 --> 00:18:14.365
that is racially diverse, well, the fact

397
00:18:14.365 --> 00:18:16.725
that they had very little interaction with children

398
00:18:16.825 --> 00:18:19.925
of other races, when they were growing up means

399
00:18:19.925 --> 00:18:21.325
that they are feel awkward

400
00:18:21.345 --> 00:18:22.885
and anxious around student,

401
00:18:22.885 --> 00:18:24.045
around people of other races.

402
00:18:24.195 --> 00:18:27.165
This racial anxiety hinders interracial dating.

403
00:18:27.905 --> 00:18:30.685
And then finally, I mean, to talk,

404
00:18:30.685 --> 00:18:33.205
to finish talking about sort of structure,

405
00:18:33.955 --> 00:18:37.325
spatial segregation is, is, I mean, it's not just in,

406
00:18:37.345 --> 00:18:38.805
in housing and in school,

407
00:18:39.345 --> 00:18:42.485
but the places where we eat, where we shop, where we play,

408
00:18:42.915 --> 00:18:44.085
they're segregated.

409
00:18:44.185 --> 00:18:46.965
And when racial minorities attempt to enter these spaces,

410
00:18:47.235 --> 00:18:49.285
they're sometimes harassed,

411
00:18:49.465 --> 00:18:51.885
by individuals including police officers who believe

412
00:18:51.885 --> 00:18:52.965
that they don't belong there.

413
00:18:53.265 --> 00:18:55.245
So think about driving, walking,

414
00:18:55.305 --> 00:18:57.405
or jogging while black or brown, you know, right?

415
00:18:57.405 --> 00:18:59.925
Sort of, you know, we we're aware of sort of

416
00:18:59.925 --> 00:19:01.045
that phenomenon.

417
00:19:01.465 --> 00:19:03.085
Um, but it's not just harassment,

418
00:19:03.145 --> 00:19:05.245
but also the laws, failure

419
00:19:05.505 --> 00:19:09.125
and at times refusal to make certain areas,

420
00:19:09.125 --> 00:19:11.125
certain white spaces accessible

421
00:19:11.125 --> 00:19:13.405
to racial minorities whom they know

422
00:19:13.555 --> 00:19:14.685
rely on public transportation.

423
00:19:15.345 --> 00:19:16.485
And so we have evidence

424
00:19:16.485 --> 00:19:18.365
that lawmakers have rejected proposals

425
00:19:18.365 --> 00:19:19.925
to expand public transportation

426
00:19:20.355 --> 00:19:23.965
that would allow racial minorities, without automobiles

427
00:19:23.965 --> 00:19:25.445
to access, white spaces.

428
00:19:26.145 --> 00:19:29.965
Um, so constituents in suburbs in Atlanta, San Francisco,

429
00:19:29.965 --> 00:19:34.285
Washington DC for example, have urged legislators to,

430
00:19:34.545 --> 00:19:36.765
you know, sort of to oppose transit stops in their

431
00:19:36.765 --> 00:19:38.085
neighborhoods because they would

432
00:19:38.085 --> 00:19:41.285
otherwise allow low income racial minorities to access it.

433
00:19:41.865 --> 00:19:46.125
Um, and so, so you also asked about not just sort

434
00:19:46.125 --> 00:19:49.165
of the offline world, but also the online world.

435
00:19:49.675 --> 00:19:52.285
Well, I mean, by facilitating segregation,

436
00:19:52.825 --> 00:19:55.485
the law shapes not who we meet offline,

437
00:19:55.825 --> 00:19:59.485
but it also shapes who we are interested in meeting online,

438
00:19:59.835 --> 00:20:03.005
because although the internet doesn't have any geographical

439
00:20:03.005 --> 00:20:05.645
boundaries, the psychological distance,

440
00:20:05.645 --> 00:20:09.365
the psychological boundaries, from the offline world,

441
00:20:09.505 --> 00:20:12.605
you know, our very segregated world, they follow us online.

442
00:20:12.985 --> 00:20:16.605
And so when, so people tend to seek out romantic partners

443
00:20:16.865 --> 00:20:20.245
who are familiar with them, who they believe, at least

444
00:20:20.245 --> 00:20:23.245
for long-term relationships, that their families

445
00:20:23.245 --> 00:20:24.445
and friends would accept.

446
00:20:24.795 --> 00:20:26.005
They do not seek out

447
00:20:26.005 --> 00:20:29.125
or respond to individuals that they have been taught to see

448
00:20:29.185 --> 00:20:31.125
as different or as undesirable,

449
00:20:31.545 --> 00:20:33.205
or that they're just not familiar with.

450
00:20:33.865 --> 00:20:38.405
Um, and then the law, you know, has, has,

451
00:20:38.545 --> 00:20:43.285
has done nothing to, to, in a sense, to regulate,

452
00:20:43.285 --> 00:20:44.765
dating, platforms.

453
00:20:45.105 --> 00:20:49.045
So dating platforms, allow discrimination

454
00:20:49.515 --> 00:20:52.325
that would be prohibited in brick and mortar spaces.

455
00:20:53.025 --> 00:20:57.125
So, so for example, if you go to a bar,

456
00:20:57.425 --> 00:21:00.405
you can ask the owner of that bar to exclude people

457
00:21:00.405 --> 00:21:02.485
of certain races, to deny them service.

458
00:21:03.265 --> 00:21:05.965
But in a sense, that is

459
00:21:05.965 --> 00:21:08.765
what is happening on some online dating sites,

460
00:21:08.915 --> 00:21:11.565
because the online dating sites have these racial filters.

461
00:21:11.825 --> 00:21:13.885
And so you can decide, you know, the, the,

462
00:21:13.885 --> 00:21:16.365
the racial filters will say, well,

463
00:21:16.435 --> 00:21:18.285
what pe Are there any races

464
00:21:18.285 --> 00:21:20.165
that you're not interested in in dating?

465
00:21:20.425 --> 00:21:23.645
And so you can basically categorically exclude all

466
00:21:23.645 --> 00:21:25.605
of these people from view, which would be,

467
00:21:25.665 --> 00:21:27.445
it would be the equivalent of going to a bar

468
00:21:27.905 --> 00:21:30.885
and asking the owner of the bar to push people

469
00:21:30.885 --> 00:21:32.525
of certain races to a back room

470
00:21:32.525 --> 00:21:33.845
where you don't have to see them.

471
00:21:34.315 --> 00:21:37.605
Well, obviously the law does not allow that offline,

472
00:21:38.185 --> 00:21:41.605
but it actually allows that, on online

473
00:21:41.745 --> 00:21:43.005
and dating platforms.

474
00:21:43.385 --> 00:21:46.445
In the book, I basically go through all of these ways

475
00:21:46.475 --> 00:21:48.965
that the law facilitates segregation

476
00:21:49.265 --> 00:21:52.365
and, you know, romantic discrimination and just,

477
00:21:52.545 --> 00:21:55.845
and basically just say, well, the law can, can actually,

478
00:21:56.025 --> 00:21:57.045
stop this.

479
00:21:57.185 --> 00:22:00.245
So, for example, let's, let,

480
00:22:00.245 --> 00:22:01.765
let's start with dating platforms.

481
00:22:01.905 --> 00:22:03.685
We just covered it last. So it's, it's,

482
00:22:03.685 --> 00:22:04.805
you know, it's fresh in our minds.

483
00:22:05.265 --> 00:22:08.925
So the law can actually apply its public accommodation laws,

484
00:22:09.065 --> 00:22:10.765
you know, the laws that apply to brick

485
00:22:10.765 --> 00:22:12.965
and mortar public spaces,

486
00:22:13.385 --> 00:22:15.925
and prohibit discrimination, you know, in those spaces.

487
00:22:16.315 --> 00:22:18.925
Well, we can apply that to dating platforms.

488
00:22:18.925 --> 00:22:22.845
So the online world, we used to meet people mostly offline,

489
00:22:23.345 --> 00:22:25.125
but now we know that,

490
00:22:25.195 --> 00:22:27.205
that most people are meeting online.

491
00:22:27.705 --> 00:22:32.325
So the same rules that prohibit, let's say,

492
00:22:32.445 --> 00:22:34.125
a restaurant owner or an owner of a bar

493
00:22:34.125 --> 00:22:37.005
or a nightclub from facilitating discrimination,

494
00:22:37.565 --> 00:22:40.805
although same rules should be extended to online platforms,

495
00:22:40.885 --> 00:22:42.125
I mean, which are businesses.

496
00:22:42.385 --> 00:22:44.445
And so they should be prohibited from

497
00:22:44.565 --> 00:22:46.725
facilitating, discrimination.

498
00:22:46.835 --> 00:22:48.645
They should be prohibited from creating

499
00:22:48.855 --> 00:22:50.085
these racial filters.

500
00:22:50.305 --> 00:22:51.805
Now, individuals would still be able

501
00:22:51.805 --> 00:22:55.085
to discriminate if they don't wanna date someone they don't

502
00:22:55.085 --> 00:22:56.925
have to, but they would not be able

503
00:22:56.925 --> 00:23:00.325
to categorically just exclude an entire

504
00:23:00.325 --> 00:23:01.565
racial group from view.

505
00:23:01.865 --> 00:23:02.885
So that's the first thing.

506
00:23:03.265 --> 00:23:06.565
Um, and then the, the, the, the other things that,

507
00:23:06.565 --> 00:23:09.445
that the law should do is really, it all goes back

508
00:23:09.445 --> 00:23:12.005
to removing the structural barriers to interracial intimacy.

509
00:23:12.345 --> 00:23:14.485
So let's abolish single family zoning,

510
00:23:14.855 --> 00:23:18.005
which keeps racial minorities out of white, out

511
00:23:18.005 --> 00:23:19.365
of white suburbs and out

512
00:23:19.365 --> 00:23:21.205
of high quality K through 12 schools.

513
00:23:21.735 --> 00:23:23.965
Let's abolish the Mrs. Murphy exception,

514
00:23:24.175 --> 00:23:26.005
which keeps racial minorities out

515
00:23:26.005 --> 00:23:28.045
of owner occupied family dwellings.

516
00:23:28.495 --> 00:23:31.245
Let's abolish the K through 12 school assignment system

517
00:23:31.245 --> 00:23:33.285
that's used in most districts,

518
00:23:33.305 --> 00:23:36.925
and which, you know, which, which keeps,

519
00:23:37.245 --> 00:23:39.605
minority students in poor and,

520
00:23:39.745 --> 00:23:43.005
and often in high poverty underperforming schools.

521
00:23:43.345 --> 00:23:47.045
And let's allow them to, to attend schools that, that are

522
00:23:47.045 --> 00:23:48.045
outside their district.

523
00:23:48.345 --> 00:23:51.085
Uh, let's create interdistrict magnet schools

524
00:23:51.545 --> 00:23:54.005
and locate them in minority neighborhoods so

525
00:23:54.005 --> 00:23:57.125
that they would attract children of all of all, races.

526
00:23:57.585 --> 00:24:02.285
Um, and finally, the Supreme Court just basically made,

527
00:24:03.265 --> 00:24:06.565
made it very difficult for universities

528
00:24:06.705 --> 00:24:08.365
or made it, we would say, impossible

529
00:24:08.365 --> 00:24:11.565
to consider race in admissions, which I think is going

530
00:24:11.565 --> 00:24:16.085
to make it even harder for, for people of different,

531
00:24:16.185 --> 00:24:18.925
of different races to come together in college,

532
00:24:19.305 --> 00:24:21.525
and have, you know, interactions.

533
00:24:21.945 --> 00:24:24.725
So we should support admissions policies

534
00:24:24.955 --> 00:24:26.365
that will enable colleges

535
00:24:26.365 --> 00:24:29.485
and universities to enroll a racially diverse student body.

536
00:24:30.185 --> 00:24:34.085
Um, affirmative action doesn't seem like it's like it's

537
00:24:34.085 --> 00:24:35.925
going to be, it's going to be a possibility,

538
00:24:36.425 --> 00:24:40.605
but many universities are starting to think creatively about

539
00:24:40.705 --> 00:24:44.005
how they can recruit students from high poverty schools.

540
00:24:44.585 --> 00:24:45.805
Um, and look, and,

541
00:24:45.945 --> 00:24:47.405
and looking at what these school,

542
00:24:47.405 --> 00:24:49.805
what these students have achieved given their limited

543
00:24:49.805 --> 00:24:54.725
opportunities, given sort of the, the achievement gap and,

544
00:24:55.105 --> 00:24:56.725
and the fact that our schools are still,

545
00:24:56.825 --> 00:25:00.245
or K through 12 schools are so segregated, this may be a way

546
00:25:00.945 --> 00:25:03.165
to achieve diversity in colleges

547
00:25:03.165 --> 00:25:05.925
and universities, which has so many benefits.

548
00:25:06.025 --> 00:25:09.165
But one of the things that it would may also do is,

549
00:25:09.305 --> 00:25:12.685
is help facilitate interracial interactions,

550
00:25:12.685 --> 00:25:14.485
in romantic relationships across race.

551
00:25:14.745 --> 00:25:17.085
And then finally, the law.

552
00:25:17.705 --> 00:25:20.325
Um, lawmakers should invest in public transportation

553
00:25:20.865 --> 00:25:23.765
as a way to reduce, spatial segregation.

554
00:25:24.065 --> 00:25:25.885
So those are just a few of, sort

555
00:25:25.885 --> 00:25:28.485
of my suggestions, three things.

556
00:25:29.025 --> 00:25:32.725
Um, the first is I hope that readers will at least question

557
00:25:33.435 --> 00:25:36.205
whether they're intimate choices were shaped by law.

558
00:25:36.565 --> 00:25:38.845
I mean, we often think that who we fall in love with

559
00:25:39.545 --> 00:25:40.925
was just magic.

560
00:25:41.025 --> 00:25:43.925
We just fell in love, and we never stopped to think about,

561
00:25:44.475 --> 00:25:49.045
well, what are the external forces that maybe led me

562
00:25:49.045 --> 00:25:50.325
to be attracted to this person

563
00:25:51.185 --> 00:25:55.005
or led me to decide that, that this group of people

564
00:25:55.555 --> 00:25:56.725
were just off the table.

565
00:25:57.105 --> 00:25:58.125
So that's the first thing.

566
00:25:58.665 --> 00:26:02.245
Um, second, I hope that that readers will see

567
00:26:02.245 --> 00:26:04.685
that our intimate choices are not just personal,

568
00:26:05.025 --> 00:26:08.645
but they also serve to re to reproduce racial, social,

569
00:26:08.745 --> 00:26:10.805
and economic and equality in our society.

570
00:26:11.425 --> 00:26:12.765
Um, and then finally,

571
00:26:13.965 --> 00:26:16.925
I really just wanna start a conversation about the role

572
00:26:16.925 --> 00:26:19.365
of intimacy in the reproduction of inequality

573
00:26:19.755 --> 00:26:21.925
between scholars and policy makers

574
00:26:22.305 --> 00:26:26.725
and what might seem to be totally unrelated fields such as

575
00:26:27.325 --> 00:26:29.085
property law, information and,

576
00:26:29.105 --> 00:26:33.045
and technology law, education law, transportation law.

577
00:26:33.365 --> 00:26:36.485
I mean, these were areas that I didn't know very much about.

578
00:26:36.825 --> 00:26:39.765
Um, I, I'm a family law scholar,

579
00:26:39.825 --> 00:26:41.125
and a critical race scholar.

580
00:26:41.625 --> 00:26:42.765
But doing this

581
00:26:43.125 --> 00:26:44.965
Research, I had to learn a lot about these

582
00:26:44.965 --> 00:26:46.205
other areas of law.

583
00:26:46.865 --> 00:26:48.325
Um, and they all,

584
00:26:48.465 --> 00:26:51.045
and I think having a conversation between scholars in these,

585
00:26:51.145 --> 00:26:55.085
in all different fields would really help us think about the

586
00:26:55.245 --> 00:26:57.685
reproduction of inequality in the intimate,

587
00:26:57.705 --> 00:26:58.765
in the intimate space.

Race and Relationships: Legal Influences Explored

00:00:00 - I've been thinking about this book for about 10 years. And it was then that I noticed that many of my family members and my, my partner's family members were both Latino, were in committed relationships with white partners, but none had African American partners. And this was a bit puzzling because we were already in predominantly minority neighborhoods, you know, meaning with mostly African Americans, and Latinos. and so we didn't have any white neighbors, any white classmates, any white friends. But what we were all taught as children, is
00:00:35 - and whiteness was just better. And these messages were gleaned from family members, from from the media. And then about 10 years ago, in these conversations with family members, it became very clear that many had internalized the message that a white partner or committed relationship was preferable to an African Am American partner. So I started looking at the work of some sociologists who were exploring individual's, preferences in the dating market, both online
00:01:06 - And what I learned is that race is a primary factor when choosing, a partner. and these preferences are reflected in the data and interracial marriages. And just to give you a, you know, just a little a, a, a flavor of the data, in 1967, just 3% of marriages in the US were interracial. In 2019, 19% of new marriages, were between persons of different races or between Latinos and non Latinos. I mean, the US Census, does not treat Latinos as a race,
00:01:37 - all the data treats Latinos as a race. but this increase from three to 19%. I mean, that is really significant. But what we know from, studies have been that have been done at Columbia and other places, Columbia University, is that, if race didn't matter, about 44% of all marriages will be interracial. And that becomes the role of law, sort of shaping our inter intimate preferences. you start to see that a lot more
00:02:08 - so currently more than one third of us born Asian Americans and Latinos, marry out mostly with whites. But in contrast, only 18% of African Americans marry out. But this contrast is even starker one considers gender. So US born Asian American women are four times as likely as African American, women to marry someone of a different race. Now, this is all really interesting from a sociological standpoint, but I'm a lawyer, I'm a law professor.
00:02:39 - how the law specifically has influenced our preferences for partners of different races, and has signaled that, you know, for partner, that signal that that partners of certain races are less desirable, less appealing, or just downright, inappropriate. So that's why I really started looking at, well, what has law done? This is my first, book. I have a couple of case books, but this is sort of the first, you know, humongous project. And because the book explores

Historical Impact of Anti-Miscegenation Laws

00:03:10 - and how it continues to shape them today, the research is both historical and contemporary. So I went back, way back, to the first anti miscegenation laws that were enacted in colonial Maryland and Virginia in the 17th century. Now, these laws were enacted, to facilitate and perpetuate slavery based on race. So, for example, Maryland's law provided that a white person who married, a black slave would be enslaved
00:03:40 - I was very, I I learned so much from the work of historians such as Peggy Pasco, who has a superb analysis of anti-national laws and cases starting in the, in the 17th century and going all the way through the 20th century. I also relied on the work of legal scholars like Rachel Moran, who first explored the law's regulation of interracial intimacy more than 20 years ago before online dating transformed how we meet and,
00:04:11 - I teach critical race theory, so I also engaged with critical race scholars such as Ian Haney, Lopez Royce, Cuan vor, who have uncovered how federal laws and specifically immigration and nationalization laws kept racial groups out of the us, which of course then impacts the composition of the population, and the pool of potential, partners. I delved into the Supreme Court cases that uphold racial discrimination, that have uphold,
00:04:44 - including, contexts like interracial intimacy, public accommodations, residential segregation, naturalization citizenship, and educational segregation. So a lot of, you know, sort of heavy reading of, of case law, but one of the things I was particularly interested in is how the law defined racial categories, but how these definitions were fluid and they shifted, they moved based on the political
00:05:13 - So just, a couple of examples. So, Virginia treated African, treated American Indian ancestry differently from African American ancestry because it wanted to recognize the descendants of Pocahontas. And John Rofe as, as white Oregons also treated, American Indian ancestry differently than, African American or Chinese ancestry because it wanted to protect the, the economic interest of the children of white men with American Indian women.
00:05:47 - to discrimination and segregation in housing and education and in public accommodations throughout most of the 20th century. However, as a result of a treaty, the Treaty of Guadalupe, Mexicans were legally white, and thus they were prohibited from marrying African Americans, even though in their day-to-day lives, they were treated just as poorly as African Americans. And then just one final example of how the law, you know,

Legal Barriers to Interracial Relationships

00:06:17 - some states prohibited marriages between whites and certain Asian groups, but the question of which Asian groups, whites were prohibited from marrying varied by state, by era, you know, the, the decade and political interests. And so the work of legal scholars such as Kevin Malar, Lauren Gomez, Larry Vol, and George Martinez, and also historians such as Erica Lee, they were just invaluable as I explored this legal history.
00:06:47 - my focus on the laws influence really required that I studied these structural barriers that indirectly, although sometimes intentionally discourage into interracial, relationships. So I had to look at those barriers. So I, I studied how the spaces in which we live, work and play shape our intimate pre, preferences and constrain our choices. So the work of historians such as, Richard Rothstein helped me understand how the government created segregated neighborhoods
00:07:18 - but also contributed to the racial wealth gap and the educational achievement gap that continues today and hinders interracial, intimacy. I have to say that this, this was quite challenging because I'm starting by looking at anti slavery and anti miscegenation laws and, you know, arguing that they impact our relationships today. And so, as I said before, slavery and the anti miscegenation laws that were first enacted to facilitate slavery along with racial
00:07:48 - and segregation, they shaped societal assumptions about racial and ethnic groups. And they signaled and continue to signal today that members of certain groups are just not suitable long-term partners. and so when we think about today, the majority of Americans now expressly reject white supremacy. But the ideas about racial difference and hierarchy, they are just embedded in our subconscious. And, and here, I look at the work of Ian Haney Lopez,
00:08:21 - that the law has translated ideas about race into the material, societal conditions that confirm and entrench those ideas. And so discrimination, legal discrimination created the conditions that reinforce societal beliefs about the intelligence, the work ethic, and the character of racial minorities. So today, for example, there's still many negative stereotypes about African Americans and Latinos, and studies have found that people have unconscious beliefs
00:08:55 - Now, in the past, the law shaped these beliefs through explicit messages. For example, labeling Latinos as an undesirable, but, but exploitable race, for example. But the law also shaped these beliefs through actions. So by denying African American and Latino children equal access to education, which it still does there, and thereby limiting their opportunities to pursue higher education, to pursue, careers,

Legal Influence on Racial Stereotypes and Relationships

00:09:24 - with desirable services, and to acquire the resources that most people consider important when choosing a life partners. So these conditions serve to legitimize societal beliefs that of African-Americans and Latinos, for example, are not as motivated or as hardworking as, as other groups. another example, some Americans still associate African-Americans and Latinos with criminality, you know, with a disposition to engage in criminal behavior.
00:09:58 - association through slavery, with its enactment of slave codes and later enactment of, of, of black codes that criminalized routine activities when engaged in by African Americans. it did the same thing with Latinos. You know, as I just said, Latinos were, were, were seen as the law. There were statute that, that, legislative history that stated that Latinos, that Mexican Americans and immigrants from Latin America were an undesirable
00:10:27 - and, and what we see today is that legal actors continue to perpetuate this perception of criminality when they elicit and rely upon racial stereotypes in, in cases, in criminal cases, for example. in addition, again, going back to sort of the conditions, the disproportionately high percentage of Latinos and African Americans that reside in high crime neighborhoods, which is a direct result of decades of government sanction segregation. Well, this further reinforces societal beliefs about black
00:11:00 - and la Latino criminality. and I just wanna point out that politicians and lawmakers are aware of the power of these stereotypes even today, and they exploit them. And so just, you know, when discussing welfare reform, for example, Ronald Reagan, president presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan talked about welfare queens, and it was, he did not have to talk about race, but he knew that he was eliciting stereotypes about,
00:11:32 - or when Donald Trump more recently asserted that Mexico was sending us bad ombres and rapists and criminals to the us. I mean, obviously he was relying on these stereotypes of Latinos as, as criminals, not to limit it to just Latinos and African Americans. I think we also need to look at how the law has shaped societal beliefs about Asian Americans that persist today. So there are many positive stereotypes about Asian
00:12:02 - but they're also the stereotype of Asian Americans as conniving in disloyal. And these were traits that lawmakers ascribed to members of Asian groups since the late 19th century. I mean, there are case law, there's cases where Asian Americans are described as, as you know, in such negative terms. the law also started the Supreme Court, for example, that Asians could never assimilate into the, into the US population. And this, you know, this notion of Asians

Law's Impact on Racial Perceptions and Relationships

00:12:34 - as a justification to exclude them for racially discriminatory immigration laws. But this, the, the effects of this depiction of Asians as un assimilable or as perpetual foreigners continues today. And we have a very recent example. So during the Covid pandemic, Asian Americans were blamed, you know, some Americans blamed Asian Americans for the nine, for the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Americans were, were victims of, were subjected
00:13:06 - where they came from, and basically told that you can never be an American. Well, these stereotypes that the law helped to create and cement shape our perceptions of who is a desirable partner, and you know, who, who we want to bring into our families. There's just so many ways in which the law, has shaped our romantic, preferences. And that is, I mean, the law has, has facilitated segregation in virtually every
00:13:37 - So our neighborhoods and our schools are segregated as a result of legally sanctioned practices such as redlining, racial steering, racially restrictive covenants that were in effect throughout most of the 20th century. But I think really importantly, current policies that we often don't think about, you know, shaping sort of our romantic preferences, these policies, you know, that are in fact, in effect today, do shape our intimate preferences,
00:14:10 - and interact with 'em, as equals. So, for example, single family zoning, something that property scholars have talked a lot about, the Mrs. Murphy, exception, which is, this exception to fair housing laws that allows for the owner of, of a, of a multi-family dwelling of, you know, four, or fewer, units to discriminate on the basis of race and other categories, if that owner actually lives there,
00:14:41 - to schools in their, to their local schools. Well, if neighborhoods are segregated, then the local schools are obviously going to be segregated. Well, that's another way that we perpetuate, segregation, and limit the ability of, of children of different races to meet and, and play and study together, and eventually, you know, develop relationships. And finally, spatial segregation that our spaces are very much racialized. And so all of these,
00:15:11 - they perpetuate physical and psychological distance between racial groups, and they limit opportunities for interracial, relationships. So, so for example, the, the single family zoning, also known as exclusionary zoning, allow, you know, allows, for only single family home to be located in, in actually in 75% of, of, sort of residential land in the US is limited

Racial Segregation in Housing and Education

00:15:41 - And I mean, this really, we know that, racial minorities are much less likely to be than, than whites to be able to afford, a single, family home. They're much more likely to be renters and much more likely to live in two family, three family, homes. so single family zoning keeps people of color, specifically African Americans and, and Latinos out of, white, predominantly white, suburbs.
00:16:13 - and this is all part of the, the racial wealth gap that placed home ownership out of the reach of many African Americans and Latinos. I talked about the Mrs. Murphy, exception. Well, when you, when you, if you live in a big city like New York City, San Francisco, maybe you think, well, most that's not going to apply to most people because mo, you know, so much of the housing is, is, you know, huge high rises. But throughout most of America, a lot of the rental
00:16:45 - And so it really could have a huge impact on individuals when the owner of that home can discriminate on the basis of race or other, categories. But I think also importantly, this Mrs. Murphy exception to Fair Housing sends the message that it's okay to discriminate as long as it's in the intimate, sphere. As I mentioned, the school assignment system, you know, that that sends children, 80% of children attend schools in their, you know, basically close to home, which seems to make sense, except
00:17:16 - and now children have to go to those segregated schools, then it means that that children, from kindergarten all the way through 12th grade are going to be going to, are going to basically be in segregated, in segregated schools. And this really contributes to the achievement gap because we know that, generally schools in white suburbs tend to be better resourced, have, and just have higher, quality teachers, smaller classrooms
00:17:48 - predominantly minority neighborhoods don't have those resources. So it creates this educational, this, this achievement, gap. They also, these schools also create a psychological distance between groups, between racial groups, such that when these children now go to college, if even if, even if despite the achievement gap, they're able to go to college, and let's say they go to the uni, a university that is racially diverse, well, the fact that they had very little interaction with children
00:18:19 - that they are feel awkward and anxious around student, around people of other races. This racial anxiety hinders interracial dating. And then finally, I mean, to talk, to finish talking about sort of structure, spatial segregation is, is, I mean, it's not just in, in housing and in school, but the places where we eat, where we shop, where we play, they're segregated. And when racial minorities attempt to enter these spaces,

Racial Segregation in Access and Relationships

00:18:49 - by individuals including police officers who believe that they don't belong there. So think about driving, walking, or jogging while black or brown, you know, right? Sort of, you know, we we're aware of sort of that phenomenon. but it's not just harassment, but also the laws, failure and at times refusal to make certain areas, certain white spaces accessible to racial minorities whom they know rely on public transportation. And so we have evidence that lawmakers have rejected proposals
00:19:20 - that would allow racial minorities, without automobiles to access, white spaces. so constituents in suburbs in Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington DC for example, have urged legislators to, you know, sort of to oppose transit stops in their neighborhoods because they would otherwise allow low income racial minorities to access it. and so, so you also asked about not just sort of the offline world, but also the online world.
00:19:52 - the law shapes not who we meet offline, but it also shapes who we are interested in meeting online, because although the internet doesn't have any geographical boundaries, the psychological distance, the psychological boundaries, from the offline world, you know, our very segregated world, they follow us online. And so when, so people tend to seek out romantic partners who are familiar with them, who they believe, at least
00:20:23 - and friends would accept. They do not seek out or respond to individuals that they have been taught to see as different or as undesirable, or that they're just not familiar with. and then the law, you know, has, has, has done nothing to, to, in a sense, to regulate, dating, platforms. So dating platforms, allow discrimination that would be prohibited in brick and mortar spaces.
00:20:57 - you can ask the owner of that bar to exclude people of certain races, to deny them service. But in a sense, that is what is happening on some online dating sites, because the online dating sites have these racial filters. And so you can decide, you know, the, the, the racial filters will say, well, what pe Are there any races that you're not interested in in dating? And so you can basically categorically exclude all
00:21:25 - it would be the equivalent of going to a bar and asking the owner of the bar to push people of certain races to a back room where you don't have to see them. Well, obviously the law does not allow that offline, but it actually allows that, on online and dating platforms. In the book, I basically go through all of these ways that the law facilitates segregation and, you know, romantic discrimination and just, and basically just say, well, the law can, can actually,

Shaping Equality: Law and Online Dating

00:21:57 - So, for example, let's, let, let's start with dating platforms. We just covered it last. So it's, it's, you know, it's fresh in our minds. So the law can actually apply its public accommodation laws, you know, the laws that apply to brick and mortar public spaces, and prohibit discrimination, you know, in those spaces. Well, we can apply that to dating platforms. So the online world, we used to meet people mostly offline, but now we know that, that most people are meeting online.
00:22:32 - a restaurant owner or an owner of a bar or a nightclub from facilitating discrimination, although same rules should be extended to online platforms, I mean, which are businesses. And so they should be prohibited from facilitating, discrimination. They should be prohibited from creating these racial filters. Now, individuals would still be able to discriminate if they don't wanna date someone they don't have to, but they would not be able to categorically just exclude an entire
00:23:01 - So that's the first thing. and then the, the, the, the other things that, that the law should do is really, it all goes back to removing the structural barriers to interracial intimacy. So let's abolish single family zoning, which keeps racial minorities out of white, out of white suburbs and out of high quality K through 12 schools. Let's abolish the Mrs. Murphy exception, which keeps racial minorities out of owner occupied family dwellings. Let's abolish the K through 12 school assignment system
00:23:33 - and which, you know, which, which keeps, minority students in poor and, and often in high poverty underperforming schools. And let's allow them to, to attend schools that, that are outside their district. let's create interdistrict magnet schools and locate them in minority neighborhoods so that they would attract children of all of all, races. and finally, the Supreme Court just basically made,
00:24:06 - or made it, we would say, impossible to consider race in admissions, which I think is going to make it even harder for, for people of different, of different races to come together in college, and have, you know, interactions. So we should support admissions policies that will enable colleges and universities to enroll a racially diverse student body. affirmative action doesn't seem like it's like it's
00:24:36 - but many universities are starting to think creatively about how they can recruit students from high poverty schools. and look, and, and looking at what these school, what these students have achieved given their limited opportunities, given sort of the, the achievement gap and, and the fact that our schools are still, or K through 12 schools are so segregated, this may be a way to achieve diversity in colleges and universities, which has so many benefits.

Law's Influence on Interracial Romantic Choices

00:25:09 - is help facilitate interracial interactions, in romantic relationships across race. And then finally, the law. lawmakers should invest in public transportation as a way to reduce, spatial segregation. So those are just a few of, sort of my suggestions, three things. the first is I hope that readers will at least question whether they're intimate choices were shaped by law.
00:25:39 - was just magic. We just fell in love, and we never stopped to think about, well, what are the external forces that maybe led me to be attracted to this person or led me to decide that, that this group of people were just off the table. So that's the first thing. second, I hope that that readers will see that our intimate choices are not just personal, but they also serve to re to reproduce racial, social,
00:26:11 - and then finally, I really just wanna start a conversation about the role of intimacy in the reproduction of inequality between scholars and policy makers and what might seem to be totally unrelated fields such as property law, information and, and technology law, education law, transportation law. I mean, these were areas that I didn't know very much about. I, I'm a family law scholar,
00:26:57 - But doing this Research, I had to learn a lot about these other areas of law. and they all, and I think having a conversation between scholars in these, in all different fields would really help us think about the reproduction of inequality in the intimate, in the intimate space.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis