I’m a black man – What happened when I booked an Airbnb
medium.com
medium.com
1. In your profile picture wear one or more of the following fedora, suspenders, thick rimmed glasses, and a bow tie. 2. Position a white or (more ideally) an Asian woman center frame, and position yourself behind her left-center. 3. Have some animals in the picture. Cats are easy, ponies work best.
Try to add other things that make you less threatening, eg. babies and ice cream.
Related question, is there a way to report hosts to Airbnb for actions like this in any way? And have you tried doing that? I've never used the site, so I honestly have no idea.
Edit: It'd be interesting to compare profile pictures used in the original story.
I stopped using Airbnb wholesale after experiencing very similar things to what the OP has described in this article.
Plus, hotels are just better.
Though they can directly address this by taking photos out of the mix. Interesting question: Right or wrong to make decisions about trusting strangers based on how they look? I know my answer, what's HNs?
Airbnb has chosen it's system (and refuses to address the flaws inherent in that system), so I've chosen not to use it.
There was a history of cab drivers in NYC refusing to pick up black customers - when Uber came to town one of the first questions was "can drivers see my photo", which they can't until they accept the ride IIRC. I don't see this situation as being too different.
You could, with mixed results, I'm sure. There are many other factors to base a prejudice on; for example "does their name /sound/ black?"
Airbnb could also establish an anti-discrimination policy, which if you are caught in these types of incidents, you and your properties will be banned for some amount of time.
I've never used the service, so I can't say for sure, but I can think of at least a few good ways to accomplish this along with a team responsible for checking into flagged events and user reports.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indian-grandfather...
I don't know if you're familiar with Curb Your Enthusiasm, but Larry gives this exact theory to his friend Leon ("white people revere black people with glasses... no glasses, no job."). It's really quite amazing how closely it mirrors what you're describing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-4e4PWGY8
Not a new concept to people of color. Despite the jokes, it's depressing.
Why? What's so special about them?
Additionally potential renters should be able to rate this initial experience as well, which should factor in the rating.
Dont think that will fix this problem but might curtail some of this behavior. I believe that technology and applied correctly has potential of changing behaviors (we have seen that in spades with AirBnB already).
I also like the idea of showing someone's profile photo only after they book. Really, there is no reason for anyone to see my photos for short-term rentals.
Maybe the two could be tied together! That is, if I start canceling prior availability dates more than a couple times, AirBNB will stop showing me profile pictures of prospective tenants in advance.
Yes, you have to make effort to show that you are not going to trash my house. Its not a hotel.
If you don't want strangers in your house --- and I sure don't either --- don't try to capitalize on it on Airbnb.
I have a very expensive permit ($2300 for the first year) and jumped through all the hoops. We pay occupancy tax, etc.
What makes it most different from a hotel is that we have to vet our guests. We won't take anyone off the street. This is perfectly reasonable and also different from a hotel.
I do hope that cities avoid passing laws around vacation rentals. The law is our town is an expensive illogical nightmare.
Also to +1 the general topic from my (female) Asian perspective which is typically considered rather non-threatening, I have a pretty vanilla photo and I always bring up "nice" things when inquiring about airbnbs, if there are no instant book options. The profiling adds up to a serious load of crap especially when you get to a/b test a bit by asking someone else to also inquire about the place.
I'm not sure that it's fair to expect Airbnb to "fix" this. Why? Because if they prevent people from discriminating on the very evil dimensions of race, gender, sexual identification, religion, etc, then they will also prevent people from discriminating on the basis of reasonable factors like "5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity".
Of course, discriminating in this way is already illegal for normal rentals, but when you have rentals of rooms in people's houses I believe it actually is legal for hosts to discriminate in some cases.
I really can't see how any sort of effective enforcement method could exist other than waiting for the racist assholes to die, sadly.
In California (the rules on this vary considerably by jurisdiction within the US), there is generally very little limit on discrimination by those renting out a room to a single roomer/boarder (but not if they are renting to multiple roomers/boarders), in an owner-occupied single family dwelling, though they generally can't advertise preference on any protected axis except gender, and only for that when there are shared living areas.
In a case like this, renting out the entire place when the terms of the rental is that the owner won't be there, this exception wouldn't seem to apply, though Idaho may have different rules (I'm having more trouble quickly finding a good description of Idaho's rules.)
Good luck, there's not much for rental regulations in the state of Idaho, and literally nothing for short-term rentals. It would come down to whether renting a property on AirBnB constitutes a lessor/lessee relationship, in which case the Fair Housing Act automatically kicks in.
Good thing this home is in Idaho...
Serious (offtopic) metaquestion: why is the postmodern view that all people, including violent criminals, are victims/products of their environment, but racists are uniquely and irredeemably evil to their core?
Usually it's more about a form of unstable and contextual xenophobia.
But it's not just against people. Also about all living things, object, behavior, events...
People are label racists like it's a deep nature, while it's most likely a small symptom of poor education + a twisted defensive reaction that is bigger than that, and is not particularly linked to race.
Well, I don't agree that that is the postmodern view, unless you define "postmodern" to specifically mean that view so that it is tautologically true; particularly, I don't believe that its all that common for any person (regardless of whether the label "postmodern" applies) to hold simultaneously to both of those beliefs. They may both be beliefs that are visible in some segment of the population, and there may be some overlap, but I don't think there is much correlation.
But, in any case, even if they were commonly held together, there is nothing inconsistent in believing that all beliefs and behavior patterns are products of the interaction of the individual with the external environment, and believing that there are certain beliefs and behavior patterns that, once established, are not correctable through any change in the environment that other people can effect (even if the same behaviors/beliefs may be made less likely to manifest in those who have not already manifested them), such that those behaviors/beliefs only go away when the people holding them die.
Hence why we don't expect to successfully re-educate them, and will have to outlive them instead.
But I suspect that the nature of postmodernism means we won't really be able to resolve what views are and aren't consistent with it to any objectively satisfying degree ;-)
Please end racism.
Regards, A dissatisified customer.
Please stop providing hosts with information that basically can only be used for discriminatory purposes against protected classes.
Regards, A dissatisfied customer
There are valid reasons to want to know what somebody looks like before allowing them into your home.
I really do not want to do business with someone who's a racist even though I'm white. I don't want to do business with misgynists even though I'm not a woman. So give these hosts a permanent badge of honor for all guests to see, rather than sweeping the problem under the carpet in a way that effectively allows these cranky hosts to discriminate almost anonymously and only incidently once an implicit agreement to rent has been made (even if it's just an inquiry).
Yeah, Trump is certainly realizing the full consequence of his beliefs.
Trump is overwhelmingly perceived as a con artist who cons only the most magnificently bored and/or stupid people of the earth. And not always a successful one either or he wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy, he could have just conned another handful of investors. Clearly some of his messes were too obvious for even the dumbest rich people of the earth to fall for.
And note that this thing hasn't really played itself out fully yet, so we'll just have to see. For all we know, he may be declaring bankruptcy again to get out of candidacy debt.
Why not just kick them off the platform? If they don't approve of a behavior, and want it to stop, why should they continue working with people who they know for a fact are engaging in that behavior?
Maybe it's a bad idea and it just encourages a sort of tribalism where the bigots do business with each other and as a social we really should say, no you can't use public goods like AirBnB. Yes it's a private company, however it is also acting like a bridge to what has historically been a place of public accommodation: hotels.
And AirBnB can decide who gets to use their service.
Dear Montgomery city bus system,
Please end racism.
Regards, A dissatisfied customer.
Discriminating by age could be considered reasonable (don't want a large group of college students) and I see valid reasons to discriminate by gender (Women may not want to book male guests if they're sharing the same space and vice-versa)...
You'd still run into the problem of real-life racists (a problem for minorities everywhere, all the time)... but such a policy would likely eliminate many racists from the site through the frustration of not being able to discriminate.
I wouldn't even rule it out entirely, you'd just need references (a decent rating).
The same age group is faced with similar problems renting apartments because they often lack credit ratings and previous references.
The US has a very long history of racism against minorities. It's been difficult to get a strong system in place to combat racism. Ageism against young people has a built in correction system called aging.
Well, for one thing, its not generally expressly prohibited by law.
In situations where you're renting a bed or a room in a shared common space — I don't think it's unreasonable to be more selective about gender. Is it discriminatory for colleges to not group men/women together in dorm room?
Again, look at the severity disparity here:
would it be socially acceptable for a woman to say "I don't want a male roommate?"
would it be socially acceptable for a white person to say "I don't want a black roommate?"
No, but that's not relevant. The correct analogy would be "Is it discriminatory for colleges to refuse residence to one gender?" That said, I respect the right of anyone to choose who they let into their home, even if I might disagree with the criteria.
For example: If I'm American, I might donate to a service that helps American homeless, and would not have donated otherwise if the service was global.
Similarly, If I'm black, I might donate to a service that only helps blacks and would not have donated otherwise. If I'm Caucasian and feel a strong sense of community for my heritage I might do the same, etc.
People feel more sympathy to those they can relate with -- I don't think that will change for many years.
Remember, you're effectively inviting over people into your home. Your safe space. Your nest. It seems really, really weird that somebody would do that without at least knowing what the person looks like.
And that's before you even get into the security issues of having to blindly trust AirBNB (or somebody claiming to be related to AirBNB) that this rando is authorized.
And if you are renting your home with AirBNB and _don't_ have some type of commercial rental insurance or coverage through your main policy you are skating on very thin ice. Even the nicest looking person in the world could ruin your place, or at the very least hurt themselves seriously in your home and bankrupt you with a massive liability lawsuit. If you aren't ready to be a landlord and abide by their rules, regulations, etc. then don't rent out with AirBNB.
Why? Says who? You're coming up with this strict concept of what AirBnB must be, but I see no reason to agree with you. It's as absurd as saying "if you aren't comfortable giving a ride to a hitchhiker with a rifle on his back and a blood-stained shirt, then don't give a ride to any hitchhiker."
I also rent my home out on VRBO, a competing platform. It is very similar to Airbnb.
This is a transaction based on trust. Random people cannot stay at my house. They need reviews and need to be properly vetted.
College guys looking to party can go to a hotel instead.
I do have regulations in my town, and they are a nightmare. The regulations only benefit hotels by discouraging people from renting out their houses or rooms.
If Airbnb required and stored pictures they could be used to identify them in case they trash the house.
I can't think of anything else the property owners would claim to use the profile pictures for.
I admit that I'm not familiar with the booking process on AirBNB, but I'd be really surprised to hear that a booking, once completed, can't be cancelled. Wouldn't the same people cancelling reservations now just cancel them post-booking instead?
Even if they don't care about people being discriminated against they could at least think about the loss of potential customers.
(granted, this can still happen, legitimately, even in a post-booking display mode.. but post-booking cancellations could be a signal for flakiness and, overall, a reason to put hosts on notice that they need to shape up)
Its perfectly fair to stop using AirBnB if you are concerned about this until and unless they fix it, independently of whether you "expect" them to fix it, when there are alternative methods of booking lodging where this problem is, at a minimum, less of an issue.
This list would be a good start for AirBNB.
Yes, but it looks like owner-occupied homes that are renting out a bedroom on AirBnB are exempt[1] from those discrimination laws. Paraphrase of law: "other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
Basically, it is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race for their personal dwelling. The concept appears to be related to the "roommate wanted" being exempted from the FHA Fair Housing Act.[2]
There may be a grey area regarding a larger 6-bedroom home that the owner occupies but is renting out for a week while he's out of town. The owner doesn't have to physically share the space simultaneously with the renter. I can't tell if anti-discrimination laws applies to that situation.
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
[2]https://blog.splitwise.com/2012/02/07/court-allows-discrimin...
There is a big difference between "not a violation of federal law" and "legal". Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.
That's true but I can't think of one example of a state having tougher discrimination laws than the Federal code in regards to a homeowner's personal dwelling.
1. The federal exemption is a blanket one from the anti-discrimination rules, California's allows most discrimination but still limits advertising and still prohibits discrimination on medical condition or age (over 40)
2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
The webpage (you cited previously) from the California Department of Consumer Affairs that mentions "medical" and "age" doesn't look to be correct.
For reference, the source laws it cites are the following:
(51) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
(51.2) (special case for senior citizens housing): http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
Government Code Section 12927(a)(2)(A): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...
Government Code Section 12955(c): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...
Reading the actual laws doesn't find any exceptions to the exemptions for roommates and homeowners renting out a private room. The "medical condition" and "age" (along with "gender", "race", etc) are all part of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The only age-specific laws (51.2) was discrimination against younger people being acceptable so as to maintain the housing for senior citizens.
In any case, it looks like the exemption for roommates based on it not being a "business". The law in (51) is directed at business establishments and not roommates/homeowners sharing a house/apartment. Based on a plain reading of the previous 4 cites, an 18-year-old girl in California can refuse to share accommodations with a 70-year-old asthma sufferer with a noisy oxygen tank.
>2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
Ok got it. But I wasn't using "tougher discrimination" in the sense that one state allows 1 room (or some other threshold number) instead of 5. Instead, I meant "tougher" as in certain state says you can't discriminate on race for the private bedroom in your house -- whereas FHA says you can.
Exemptions to federal statues may not apply in this case if the owner is renting out >4 bedrooms.
The owner-occupied housing exemption only applies to buildings with 4 or fewer units.
The single family home exemption may still apply, but if you're rending out all the bedrooms, it's probably gray enough that you should avoid overt racial discrimination.
But you really ought to avoid overt racial discrimination in any case...
Tons and tons of places on AirBnB are not residences but full-time hotels. This is why the site is so hated by established interest groups. Tons of entrepreneurs are out there buying up or renting long-term housing and converting it into short-term rentals, all while avoiding the fees and regulations that apply to traditional hotel businesses.
"5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity" isn't a protected class under US law.
AirBNB and their lawyers believe that US Law does in fact apply. They note explicitly though that there are certain classes of exceptions.
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/898/ada-and-fha-complian...
That depends on local law; in California, it doesn't if you have exactly 1 roomer in a single-family, owner-occupied home. (There are still restrictions on advertising preferences, except gender, and then only when there are shared living spaces.)
People using Airbnb to rent out their property are effectively breaking the laws and due to loopholes in regulations cannot be held responsible. It's a lot more than just social rules.
[1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-...
Also, the racist does not use this property as a primary residence. It's one among many vacation rentals she owns so she has no protections under the law.
Not being able to solve the problem 100% doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do anything.
(Now, maybe they have done a bunch of stuff, I don't know, but it seems like there's still a problem)
There's plenty Airbnb can do to ensure their hosts aren't racists. They have complete oversight of the booking process. They can detect racist rejection patterns and investigate.
Airbnb owns 0% of the houses put up for rent on their platform.
I think there's a marked difference in attitude between the companies towards a problem they both face and just because Facebook or Big Company X ignore stuff like this doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to ignore it. A change in attitude alone is progress on these fronts and we should hold more of these companies accountable so that they at least try to do something. It's not their responsibility to eliminate racism, but I believe it is their responsibility to try to understand how and why something like this manifests on their platform and try to take steps to curb it.
It's not an easy problem by any means, but try is the key word here. More companies taking well-intentioned steps like this leads to learnings that can be shared across our industry.
[1] https://blog.nextdoor.com/2016/01/27/our-commitment-to-end-r...
[2] https://blog.nextdoor.com/2016/04/12/improvements-to-how-our...
[3] https://blog.nextdoor.com/2016/04/26/continued-improvements-...
Since they monetize by taking a share of transactions, they are a lot more like an involved participant in the transaction than an uninterested messenger.
Using some simple logic, it would be quite easy to detect signs of racial bias during booking.
Ending racism is a complex and perhaps ultimately unsolvable problem, but mitigating it's effects is something we can and should do.
An email reminder won't work. Someone who is uncomfortable having a particular ethnic group will not be swayed by an email reminder not to be racist.
Furthermore, unless racism is widespread in a particular area, it may not be possible to identify racists with statistical analysis and threaten racist hosts with banning. I can imagine this working in a relatively racist place where >5% of hosts refuse service for a particular (and relatively common) ethnicity but it's likely rare enough in most parts of the U.S. to avoid reliable detection without false positives.
If Airbnb sees a suspicious rejection of a person of color, Airbnb themselves could try rebooking it under a fake white profile. If it gets accepted, ban the host (or flag for further review, etc.)
It could be mostly automated and has no negative impact on good hosts.
Edit: Something else important here. We do not know that the reason he was denied was because he was black. You have reviews of yourself that you cannot see. Who's to say this isn't some race baiting article and this guy is a creep.
That cuts both ways. They're free to reject whoever they want and AirBnB should be free to reject them from listing their properties.
By the way, the above is a great idea which would also not cause anyone to violate the rules of the platform by creating fake profiles, etc. Plus, it has zero effect on people who are not racists.
This would be an issue, if people were forced to rent out their homes on AirBnB.
Rental property? Nope, there are laws that apply to hotels and normal rentals to avoid these situations. My dad doesn't get to deny access to his beach rental because a tenant is black.
This mirrors U.S. housing law. You don't have to rent your place out, but if you do you can't discriminate based on race.
You can't advertise that you discriminate but you generally can discriminate if (1) it's fewer than 4 units and the owner lives on premises, (2) it's a single family home owned by a person and rented w/o a broker, or (3) various other exceptions like religious organizations.
I suspect legally most airbnb landlords are in the clear.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do manage an apartment building. We don't discriminate; we just rent to the applications with the highest income and credit ratings.
I also suspect it would be in AirBnB's interest to weed this out, but since as a company they have no ethics, nothing will happen until there's a super embarrassing incident and it becomes news. eg Beyonce gets screwed by AirBnB and tweets it.
As for the law, while you note some exceptions to the federal housing laws, states may supplement. For example it is illegal to discriminate in California even if you're renting a small home.
Watch it on this - despite the exceptions in the FHA, exceptions never apply to racial discrimination. IANAL, but the discrimination outlined in the article is unlawful, regardless of any exceptions. Plus, state law often supplements the FHA to close off many of the exceptions.
But if AirBNB want to have a racism free site where only non-racists homeowners are allowed to post listing then it is perfectly with in the right to do so and I support AirBNB in banning any racist persons they find trying to use their site.
No one has a right to a AirBNB listing, and just as the homeowers can refuse service to anyone, so can airbnb
The government already passed the law mandating this, way back in 1968: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
Yes, it applies to Airbnb: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/898/ada-and-fha-complian...
Even if you are OK with people filtering occupants based on race, it's really poor UX to allow someone to book, and then have the host cancel with a bogus reason.
If there are hosts on AirBnB that aren't willing to rent to brown people, then there's no point showing those listings to me (a brown person).
Knew this would be in here somewhere.
You could also just offer black people the same level of trust you do anyone else when they share a negative experience they've had with a product or service...
If the person is going to complain and pull the race card on a public forum in an attempt to disparage a largely successful company then they deserve to be scrutinized.
If he provided details saying he had similar reviews to his white friend that applied, and didn't message her TWO times without a response (making it seem like he REALLY wants the place for several days) then i'd be more like ok ya she's being racist kind of unreasonably so.
As opposed to reasonable racism? I think we're done here.
It strikes me that both "racism" and "anti-racism" live on an axis that is orthogonal to "reasonableness". Both views seem to commit the believer to strongly-held assumptions that cannot be falsified.
$36k fine because a landlord "preferred to rent to adults".
The Fair Housing Act says otherwise (with respect to race and a few other categories), owner occupied rentals and small time single-family landlords excepted. No one is forcing you to rent out your property for profit, so if you don't want to let certain people in your house, don't rent it out on Airbnb.
At a minimum you would need to make sure you fake both profiles to ensure everything but skin color is the same.
Which would be utterly obvious and ineffective. Instead, they could look for discriminatory rejection patterns.
Maybe I'm lacking imagination, but how do you account for the renter and Airbnb having vastly different sets of information to work from? Also your sample size would have to be huge to rule out coincidental outcomes, which I dare say would rarely be found for the average property.
For example my property gets about 100 customers per year. I'm guessing in the last 4 years I've had 3 black customers, all accepted by the way, but if I rejected all 3 can an algorithm reasonably rule out coincidence having such a low sample size? It just seems like it would be the kind of algo doomed to fuck it up.
Consistently rejecting the one black customer you get every year would probably raise your score enough to prompt an investigation, and the outcome of that (like a fake white test booking) would give more confidence that it's not just coincidence.
Some blogging aspires to be the kind of neutral, third-party journalism to which that standard applies, but this kind of sharing of one's personal experience is not that kind of blogging.
It's more like a personal version of an institutional press release, which might be the trigger and starting point for a journalistic story, but isn't one itself.
I realize that nowadays it's not as clear cut when you're reading an op-ed and when you're reading a piece of news, and sometimes it seems like authors try to blur the lines, but the distinction exists for a reason. The author of the piece did not really seem to try to make this anything more than "this is my story", which should set the tone and understanding of the writing he's about to present.
However, I'm really not sure that there is a solution to this. People in general are racist/biased/sexist/thing-ist, all over the world. Trying to regulate that fact doesn't make sense (how would you even police that?), but perhaps confronting her about it could help. If you sent her your blog post, detailing the steps that you took, she could come around and tell you a more reasonable explanation, like that her schedule is unstable and she had lots of other offers.
The more overt racists can be dealt with by doing simple analysis of denied/cancelled bookings and banning them.
I'm guessing AirBnB will eventually have to implement one or both of these approaches to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
We made a lot of progress on this a few decades ago with fair housing laws. It wasn't instant or perfect, but it absolutely was policeable. You can't police how people feel, but you can, empirically, police whether people get to act on their feelings to deny other people civil rights.
Of course, you need a working regulatory framework for such policing to be able to have an effect.
They could even automate it with a bot.
It'd be better to rely on statistics: if a host systematically rejects some "protected class", THEN you can accuse them of unjust discrimination.
(Also it should be noted, "looked untrustworthy" can be code for racism.)
When we first started renting it out we did have a bunch of girls throw a party and there was some damage. They lied about their intention to have a party.
The neighbor has been mad at us ever since.
Discriminate? Absolutely! No one can force me otherwise.
You have to trust the guest not to trash your house. Its very subjective. Rejecting someone means I lose money but its worth the risk.
I'll bet most people prefer to rent from hosts that say they don't discriminate.
Of course this won't solve the problem, but for hosts like the one our blogger found, it will at least tug on their conscience.
Not a huge deal isolated, but this type of minor discrimination really gets old.
We humans can be terrible :(.
[1] Plus, I caught myself doing the exact thing I was lamenting. (Not "racism" per se, but still "us-vs-them".)
If I can't choose who to allow into my home, I am not using AirBnB as a host. I am confident that almost everyone shares this sentiment.
Imagine if AirBnB required you to let anyone stay at your home. AirBnB wouldn't last another day.
I agree that you shouldn't make judgements based upon only the profile picture. On the other hand, if they post things I find unattractive (like making fun of people of another race), I'm definitely not going to let them in my home. (OP seems to be a victim of the former and I sympathize with him)
Hotels have their place, but for extended vacations, having an entire home at your disposal can really change the quality of the vacation. More space to spread out and relax, a kitchen so you can cook some meals, etc.
It would obviously be politically unpalatable, but in a way it might be better if say AirBNB implemented support for discrimination on their platform. It's obviously something that exists, so reifying it into the formal system should make it easier to optimize away.
If you want to participate in social media (which you have to, some people won't communicate any other way) you've got to accept that not everyone views your privacy the way you do.
And even of it did work, it wouldn't solve the issue since discrimination based on name can happen just as easily for people with obviously-black or obviously-Islamic names.
But if you get it right, is there any legitimate explanation for why statistical differences would exist? Or do you baseline against the entire AirBNB population (which may be biased in of itself)?
It is people sharing their homes they should be able to deny anyone for any reason. It's not like their house is a public service that everyone needs.
I've used AirBnB several times. If you're there for any appreciable amount of time that isn't one night, these people will vet you and interview you beforehand and if they don't like you they will deny it. There is nothing wrong with that.
Who's to say this guy didn't have an iffy review that he doesn't know about?
That is indeed one reason on a long list, why I only work online. I simply do not accept job offers or service contracts in which I would have to disclose racial information.
Generally, if the counterparty decides to proceed, and then breaks our contract on impermissible grounds, they will obviously be facing a bill for the damage, as specified in the T & C of the marketplace in which we execute the trade. In those cases, we do not discuss. We repossess and confiscate only.
Fundamentally, I believe that anybody has the right to be as racist as he wants and towards any race of his own choosing. That is certainly not the problem.
I only demand that the third party who will be the judge of it, must be color blind, objective, and impartial. That is one reason on the list of so many, why I never agree to any part of any state apparatus to be the judge of such situation.
I am personally not racist. That would be utterly contrary to my fundamental beliefs. In the Farewell Sermon, delivered after the final double recitation, as narrated by Ibn Hanbal, you can find my fundamental belief about racism:
Indeed, there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except for his greater obedience to the laws of God and his good works.
If someone rejects me, no big deal. Sexist? Probably but I understand. It just means I need to either: a) try harder to look trustworthy b) just stay at a hotel c) stay at an airbnb with guaranteed booking
It's not like they have access to all the data from who the hosts accept and reject and the profile pictures of each.
This also assume you're looking for a full house/flat, not a room, but I think that's probably the majority use for AirBnB these days.
... his beard looks pretty decent. You want spotty you should see mine.
Dude wants to pay me a 1000+ dollars to stay at my AirBnb I'm probably gonna be okay with it.
Uber on the other hand may actually reduce profiling . You don't have the fear of a driver ripping you off
In California, if there is exactly one roomer in an owner-occupied, single-family home, its legal to discriminate on just about any basis -- but not to advertise a preference.
Except if there are also shared living spaces that will be used, in which case it is also legal to advertise a gender preference.
See, "Limited exceptions for single rooms and roommates", at http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discriminati...
In case you're not being obtuse, the Fair Housing Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
It applies to rentals of full properties, but not to roommates or (some) owner occupied properties.
Intentionally obtuse it is!
The reason it's permissible is because the exception is permitted under the Act. It's not predicated on some vague legal principal (nor, for that matter, is your example - that's a policy reason, not a legal one).
If you want the policy justification for permitting discrimination in one case but not the other, it's exactly what you outline above: there is a significant difference between renting out a portion of your own home, and renting a property exclusively for business purposes (i.e. real estate investment): https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...
Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?
> There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own
Seriously? If you think that renting to minorities or other protected classes means "putting your property & other tenants' lives at risk," then I just don't know what to tell you here.
Advertise the fact that AirBnB lets racial discrimination go unabated, unlike the hotel industry which is regulated for this. Younger, more liberal minded individuals will be less likely to use AirBnBs.
If someone rejects me, no big deal. Sexist? Probably but I understand.
Extremely cheap energy (fusion power maybe?) might solve it for good by alleviating survival worries in the human psyche, no amount of regulation or rules can.
Edit: resource scarcity from the perspective of the human psyche, which affects worries about survival. The unconscious worries about there not being enough stuff, so that you might as well divide it up with your group.
Scarcity -> Identify a vulnerable out group -> Attack out group and steal their hunting grounds
Our brain stems don't know what millennium they are in.
I was talking about the unconscious worry about resources and survival, not the rational economic kind.
It's not a "I'm going to reserve my airbnb for my racial group only!" it's: "I'm uncomfortable letting someone of another race rent my house, because I am not familiar enough with their culture to know if they're going to wreck my house or not."
Racism & sexism are bad business practices. *-ists have to operate in a smaller labor or customer pool in order to operate. The AirBnB operator lost 30 minutes of organization in this blog, so you're either wasting time or you end hiring a lower-quality member of your own racial group.
I'll make the claim that: as long as resource scarcity exists, there is an economic pressure to be less racist.
I was talking in the terms of the human unconscious - the knowledge reaffirmed your entire life, and for as long as humans existed that stuff is scarce. And if stuff is scarce and that affects your survival - you might as well secure it for yourself and your group (the reason being that your immediate group is more likelly to support you, e.g arabs got a proverb about this - me against my brother, me and my brother against the men of our village, our village against another village, and so on).
If resource scarcity could be alleviated through cheap energy, that might modify this base human survival mechanism which is a reason for in-groups/out-groups.
I don't believe 'racism' in the traditional sense (especially institutional racism) is inevitable at all. Sure you can change the argument and argue about a different thing, but we are specifically talking about race here.