Claremont students refuse to live with whites[W:139]

[TheGoverness]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

What a silly question. This story would be front page CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and 50 pages deep at this point if it was the other way around.

Of course it would.

 

[sangha]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

It's considered subleasing.

42 U.S. Code § 3602 - Definitions



Essentially a landlord rents to someone, then that someone subleases to another person in order to help cover the bills. Renter A has a contract with the Landlord. Renter B has a contract with Renter A. Renter A is considered the landlord of Renter B. Or to put it another way Renter B cannot kick Renter A out of the apartment because Renter A has a contract with the Landlord. But Renter A can kick Renter B out because Renter B has a contract with Renter A and not with the Landlord. The contract between the Landlord and Renter A takes precedence over the contract between Renter A & B.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not disputing whether they are renting. They are, specifically sub-leasing, which is a form of renting under the statute. What I was unclear about was Beaudreaux's statement that they were landlords. It appears that they are not landlords because they don't own the property being rented. However, that is irrelevant because the law applies to everyone who rents (with a few specific exemptions) and not just landlords.

 

[sangha]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

If it had been 3 white students denying a black person because of their skin color would you be asking why it is significant?

Yes, I would.

Do you think blacks not renting to whites is a significant problem in our society?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

I am not contesting that they are "renting", as it is defined by the statute. I am questioning your claim that they qualify as a "landlord" under the law. The statutes you linked to do not define landlord, and when I google the legal definition, they all come back saying it is someone who *owns* the property being rented or leased, which is not the case here. These renters do not own the apt.

However, it appears that being a landlord is not necessary Sec 3604 says


Note that this section is not limited to landlords. It applies to anyone who is offering a dwelling for rent so it appears they are in violation of this law. However, there are exceptions

3603(b)(2) has an exemption for


However, there's no evidence that the owner will be living in the same building the rented apt is in. If not, then they are in violation of the law.

I have nothing more than the law to refer to. the term "To rent" in the definitions is an action that a landlord would undertake such as "to lease," rather than "renting" or "leasing" and that understanding is further bolstered by the terminology "..., to let and otherwise to grant for consideration the right to occupy a premises not owned by the occupant." which is again, an action taken by a landlord rather than a tenant. A tenant or renter does not have the legal power or authority to "grant" themselves the "right to occupy a premises" whereas a landlord does have both the power and authority by the very action of legally granting such right for consideration (being the rent).

As you well know, I'm not an attorney. I do fell that this particular federal code is pretty simple and evident as to the intent and purpose.

 

[sangha]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

I have nothing more than the law to refer to. the term "To rent" in the definitions is an action that a landlord would undertake such as "to lease," rather than "renting" or "leasing" and that understanding is further bolstered by the terminology "..., to let and otherwise to grant for consideration the right to occupy a premises not owned by the occupant." which is again, an action taken by a landlord rather than a tenant. A tenant or renter does not have the legal power or authority to "grant" themselves the "right to occupy a premises" whereas a landlord does have both the power and authority by the very action of legally granting such right for consideration (being the rent).

As you well know, I'm not an attorney. I do fell that this particular federal code is pretty simple and evident as to the intent and purpose.

See my #52

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

See my #52

Okay, makes sense to me. Thanks for the redirect. I was using the term landlord as a descriptor more than a factual legal definition, which is why I gave you my description in post #54 of the logic behind my thought process.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

So this is perfectly OK?

Morally, the opposite.

Legally, I'm too lazy to analyze it at this moment.

 

[instagramsci]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

This is what's considered a dishonest dodge folks. People know very well what the answer would be.

i mean you've done nothing to prove me wrong but dont get hurt patting yourself and/or countryboy on the back

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

Yes, I would.

Do you think blacks not renting to whites is a significant problem in our society?

I think anyone not renting to someone based on their skin color is a problem.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

i mean you've done nothing to prove me wrong but dont get hurt patting yourself and/or countryboy on the back

And you've done nothing to answer the question. So go ahead and continue to dodge. Everyone sees the hypocrisy that your posts are displaying.

 

[sangha]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

I think anyone not renting to someone based on their skin color is a problem.

That's not what I asked.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

It wouldn't be ridiculous if a white student did the same thing.

You really think a college student would be expelled for a roommate ad? Really?

 

[instagramsci]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

And you've done nothing to answer the question. So go ahead and continue to dodge. Everyone sees the hypocrisy that your posts are displaying.

if you wish to prostrate at the alter of black and white morality rather than deal with the demonstrable difference between how white people and non-white people are treated by society at large and why some black people may not want to live with white roommates I can't help you

we're all hypocrites, friend

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

Oh I know, I hear that alot from that crowd.

Racism = Prejudice + Power, so POC's can't be racist because white people have all the power.

It's a BS argument.

I hate when propaganda redefines words.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

You really think a college student would be expelled for a roommate ad? Really?

Yes; they represent the school. Its part of the agreement.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

Link?

Similar examples?

 

[Kobie]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

What a silly question. This story would be front page CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and 50 pages deep at this point if it was the other way around.

Ah, more Argument By Hypothetical.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

if you wish to prostrate at the alter of black and white morality rather than deal with the demonstrable difference between how white people and non-white people are treated by society at large and why some black people may not want to live with white roommates I can't help you

we're all hypocrites, friend

So long as you admit that you're being hypocritical then fine. But excusing one wrong while hollering about the same wrong because of skin color is racist.

 

[Casper]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

Claremont students refuse to live with whites





So this is perfectly OK?

We need to take a hard look at where real racism actually exists and in what communities.

There are white people, some on this site, that think exactly the same way but from the other side. Nothing new and no race has a monopoly on racism.

 

[rhinefire]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

See what happens when you force bus them in to our schools?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

Link?

Similar examples?

It's really not all that uncommon for a school to suspend or expel students that make racist remarks or does something racist even when these things are said/done off campus. I'm sure that you've heard of plenty of instances where its happened. And I don't think that this being put in an ad should matter at all. A racist remark is a racist remark. And you'll note from the OP that more than just that ad being racist is being talked about. There are multiple people that are supporting that ad. People that are supposed to be leaders in that college. That in and of itself is problematical at the very least.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

It's really not all that uncommon for a school to suspend or expel students that make racist remarks or does something racist even when these things are said/done off campus. I'm sure that you've heard of plenty of instances where its happened. And I don't think that this being put in an ad should matter at all. A racist remark is a racist remark. And you'll note from the OP that more than just that ad being racist is being talked about. There are multiple people that are supporting that ad. People that are supposed to be leaders in that college. That in and of itself is problematical at the very least.

If they're going to punish students for what happens off campus maybe no one should go there at all.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

Yeah, it's OK. It's racist, but it's OK. People should be free to live with whom they want. If a bunch of white folk only wanted to live with white folk, that would be OK too.

No, actually, it's not okay to be openly and rudely racist . . . if someone doesn't want to room with 'white people' - maybe they shouldn't be rooming or attending at that University AT ALL. That type of toxic attitude and behavior shouldn't be encouraged or condoned. It's NOT progressive. It's digressive.

Our country has taken a stance AGAINST racism - it should NOT be fostered or encouraged. ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE on a campus filled with all races and all mixes there of.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

I think anyone not renting to someone based on their skin color is a problem.

I think they can rent to whomever they please. I also don't consider it a problem in the slightest since that would suggest there should be a standard at all.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Re: Claremont students refuse to live with whites

They are advertising for room mates. That means that they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. I hope they get sued.

Now as to what you state. Those mission and core values is what they want to teach the people going to that college. If these students are doing this then I'd say that they (pitzer college) failed in their mission and core values. I never stated, or implied, that Pitzer College could do anything about their off campus activities. Although we have seen in the past where college's and universities have suspended and even expelled students for behavior that they exhibited off campus. So I see no reason why Pitzer College couldn't do something about this.

As for the Jim Crow laws, I stated that its the same kind of racism that was in Jim Crow laws. IE: One race not allowing certain things based on another's race.

I hope this snow flake doesn't melt when she goes out into the real world.