Discuss any similarities you see in the  Shelly v. Kramer case, and the Remnants of Jim Crow Found in Modern Housing Policy  Specifically, discuss if you believe state action and housing policy has changed or if much has remained the same, if so, how has it changed or remained the same for minority, and in particular Black residents in cities across the United States including Omaha, Nebraska.   
 

Discuss how the Shelly family in the Shelly v. Kramercase experience of racism connected to the larger racial history in the historical context of the assigned reading(s)? What does it mean to feel comfortable in a space, be it residential, commercial, or otherwise?
 

Discuss how the State action through the promise of assimilation or the lack thereof in American educational history in order to assess if this promise was genuine, desirable, or fulfilled in the educational experiences of American Indians, Latina Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and African Americans, and if you believe it enforces the idea of  “Whiteness” as the norm and “otherizing” non-white citizens. for context the "the Remnants of Jim Crow Found in Modern Housing Policy" is this : "The words “Jim Crow” often conjure images of
1960s-era water fountains below “Whites Only”
signs or chaotic scenes at a Woolworth's lunch
counter.
Though those painful scenes may be behind us, a
new article by Deborah Archer, associate professor
of clinical law at NYU Law, shows how racial discrimination is alive and well in many
American neighborhoods half a century later—albeit in less visible, more insidious forms.
In “The Housing Segregation: The Jim Crow Effects of Crime-Free Ordinances” published in
the Michigan Law Review, Archer points to local laws that encourage or require landlords to
evict or exclude tenants who have had contact with the criminal legal system as a “critical
mechanism for effectuating the new housing segregation.”
While the Fair Housing Act—a section of the landmark 1968 Civil Rights legislation signed by
President Lyndon B. Johnson—prohibits inequitable treatment on the basis of race and other
factors, recent evidence suggests that many in the real estate industry continue to skirt the law. A
fall 2019 investigation by Newsday, for example, revealed that real estate agents in Long Island
were steering white clients toward predominantly white neighborhoods and people of color
toward neighborhoods with higher minority populations and lower incomes.
Those engaged in this kind of racial steering—along with other illegal practices such as
predatory lending—risk consequences, but Archer’s article shows how crime-free housing
ordinances enable another, equally harmful form of discrimination that’s perfectly legal. Unlike
broader, race-based mechanisms of segregation, crime-free housing ordinances are either
overlooked or defended as justified on the grounds that they affect only those who have
previously committed criminal offenses.
NYU News asked Archer to elaborate on the hidden ways in which these ordinances, ostensibly
designed to keep communities safe, create barriers for upward mobility and racial integration.
There’s a long history of using the narrative of black criminality as a justification for
segregation.
“The myth of the black criminal was used to justify many Jim Crow laws. Now that Jim Crow
has ended, that rhetoric continues to drive mass incarceration and its deleterious impact on black
people and black communities. Crime-free ordinances fit squarely into this history.”
They have the purported goal of stemming crime in rental housing, but the truth is that they are
more effective at excluding racial minorities and promoting racial segregation.
By allowing—and in some cases requiring—landlords to make housing decisions on the basis of
tenants’ contacts with the criminal legal system, these policies treat applicants and tenants as
suspects, blurring the line between housing determinations and policing. The embrace of exile
and exclusion was also evident in Jim Crow policies around the country, where white people
created white-only spaces—such as schools, neighborhoods, parks, and restaurants—by creating
and perpetuating narratives of black criminality that justified the exclusion of black people."
The problem is exacerbated by the phenomenon of white people calling the police on their
black neighbors.
"White community members who are suspicious or resentful of people of color enforce their
racism by “weaponizing” the police, causing a spike in police officers responding to complaints
about black people living their lives in white spaces. These increased police contacts cause a
range of risks for black people. When crime-free ordinances are in place, one of those risks is
that these police contacts can be used to exclude black tenants from white communities and
preserve white residential spaces. In this way, these ordinances have the potential to facilitate
legally permissible racial segregation—racially restrictive covenants in disguise."
These laws ensnare people who do not pose a threat to the health or safety of other
residents, often excluding those desperately in need of housing.
"In their most problematic form, these ordinances make alleged criminal activity a violation of
the rental agreement, allow police officers to influence whether a potential tenant’s criminal
history disqualifies him from rental housing in the community (or whether a tenant must be
evicted because of alleged “criminal activity”), and allow revocation of a private landlord’s
authorization to rent her property for failing to act on those police determinations. Significantly,
in many jurisdictions a resident does not have to be convicted in order to be evicted. This creates
the threat that a mere arrest—or even a stop that results in neither arrest nor conviction—might
be sufficient to evict someone from their home or deny someone’s rental application."
Americans have not focused on the modern—and legal—drivers of racial segregation as
much as we should.
"I think that this is in part because housing discrimination is often perceived as a relic of history,
and of course that is not true. People also frequently believe that lingering segregation is driven
by regrettable, but understandable private choices beyond the reach of the law—rational
decisions motivated by the desire to live in safe communities with high quality schools, good
amenities, and high property values. They do not see the ways that laws and public policy drive
residential segregation."
For many Americans the link between housing policy and the criminal legal system seems
natural.
"The federal government began excluding people with criminal legal system involvement from
federally subsidized housing in 1975. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this regime
of exclusion, and with promulgation of crime-free housing ordinances, these policies have now
spread from public housing to the private rental housing market.
The truth is that many people really do believe that people who have contact with the criminal
legal system are morally deficient, dangerous, and unworthy of second chances. This is true even
when people have not been convicted of a crime, and it is especially true when those people are
black. Far too many people have bought into these narratives, making it easier for policymakers
to justify the sweeping exclusions these ordinances represent."
Crime-free housing ordinances can and should be altered to lessen their discriminatory
impact.
"To truly minimize the potential for perpetuating segregation and discrimination, crime-free
housing ordinances should not rely on stops or arrests as a measure of the danger a tenant poses
to his or her neighbors. Further, if convictions must be used, crime-free ordinances should not
encourage landlords to exclude people with a conviction regardless of how old the conviction is,
the nature of the underlying conduct, or the individual’s post-conviction record. The law should
not paint all people with criminal convictions with the same brush.""