Ureña is setting up a private house off campus and the house has nothing to do with the university, except that some, if not all residents will be students.
Being that it is not university housing for a public university, it is no one else’s business except four the house’s owner and its residents.
First of all, housing discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and probably sexual orientation by this time, is illegal in California. So the ad broke the law for starters.
Second, the ad was placed in a public forum, so like anything so widely announced is subject to commentary and debate.
Third, we are in an era of Black Lives Matter where individuals and groups maintain that whites institutionally discriminate against “people of color.” If this same aggrieved group wishes to engage in its own racism, then it's rational and understandable that public commentary will follow.
So yes, it's everybody’s business.
Not true.
It took a couple supreme court cases to firm it up, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits all racial discrimination in the sale or rental of publicly or privately held property, without exception, whether facilitated by a real estate agent or not.
The 1968 civil rights act added the Fair Housing Act which provided further discriminatory practices, including within advertising.
If I had seen this ad as a white person, I would’ve requested the room and filed a HUD complaint after not getting it.
$16,000 on first offense through an administrative HUD complaint.
It is not my business to tell her she cannot do what she is doing. But is all of our business to point out the hypocrisy of her position.
If I read it right, the discriminatory ad was posted in a campus newspaper.