The new lawsuit includes adjustments to the language which led to a judge dismissing the complaint in the first round of legal proceedings. The company is being accused of "reverse red-lining," in which black neighborhoods were targeted for predatory loans. Standard red-lining is the historical practice of outlining certain neighborhoods that would be denied access to particular services, such as banking, grocery stores, or health care. The reverse red-lining concept ties to a bank's desire to pinpoint black neighborhoods to be specifically offered products that are unique to the individuals in that community. So, in other words, some bankers may have felt they were doing us a favor by offering loan products with higher interest rates. The foreclosure crisis of the last two years has made it quite evident that this is not the case.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the Wells Fargo predatory lending scheme was their use of black community leaders to gain the trust of black people. Like dictators in third world countries, pastors and public figures in the black community worked hard to persuade African Americans to believe in the bank and its lending products. The most notorious relationship was the lucrative deal signed between Wells Fargo and Tavis Smiley.
Smiley deserves credit for ending his affiliation with Wells Fargo. But he must be held accountable for not properly vetting the toxic financial products being offered to the people he claims to represent. As I discuss in my book, 'Black American Money,' there is a danger when we only see the bottom line of corporate affiliations without fully understanding the fine print. The fixation that some of us have on paying the bills can cause us to sell our freedom in the process. Corporate America can be a greater enemy to black social progress than the Ku Klux Klan. Therefore, all such relationships must be pursued very carefully.
Related:
+Oprah Being Sued for Plagiarism: Booklet Author Seeking $150K
+Debrahlee Lorenzana Back in the News for Being "Too Hot"
The Baltimore suit against Wells Fargo is further complicated by the fact that the company is one of the title sponsors for the NAACP's latest annual convention. I was uncomfortably curious about this relationship, especially because the company became a sponsor shortly after the NAACP dropped its lawsuit against Wells Fargo for racial discrimination. I spoke on this matter with NAACP President Ben Jealous, who seemed to feel that the organization could do more good by working with Wells Fargo than by working against them. I let Ben know that I don't agree with this perspective, but friends are allowed to disagree.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition and a Scholarship in Action Resident of the Institute for Black Public Policy. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here. 

Comments: (22)
Add a comment
By: Brady on 10/28/2010 2:38PM
Ok let me get this, you blast one Juan Williams, but you cordially disagree with the NAACP.
Wells Fargo cheats hundreds if not thousands of black folks, and you and Ben just disagree.
So Juan doesnt rob anybody, he has a different view and appears on fox. The NAACP is in bed with a notorious predatory lender, and you Ben just disagree.
You admit to being FRIENDS, with someone who is in bed with a company that robs black people. by the way hiow is that working with Wells Fargo coming along?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: fred freeman on 10/28/2010 10:26PM
IT IS ABOUT TIME JUAN GOT CAUGHT BEING A HYPOCRITE PRETENDING TO BE A LIBERAL WHILE BEING A CONSERVATIVE AT HEART......JUAN KNEW THE RULES BUT CHOSE TO DISOBEY THEM.....KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK DR. BOYCE......WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER......
Report This
By: Malik on 10/29/2010 2:51PM
@Jeronimus, not sure how identifying with white supremacist leaning ideology has anything to do with the unethical practice of charging higher interest rates to people who don't deserve higher interest rates. This is the root of the issue. The way the current Western banking system works is, if someone is riskier (relative to other candidates), they'll get charged a higher interest, but this should be regardless of ethnicity.
I think the issue is there were many African-Americans who were charged higher interest rates with subprime loans although their credit, savings, and outstanding debts should of made them candidates for prime loans. As an African-American who has a mortgage, I have a standard prime loan because my credit is good. There are many reports that show whites with similar subprime worthy credit scores received prime loans.
But lets take it a step further. No financial institutions should give out loans to clients who they know can't pay them back, but many banks did this because they knew that Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac or some other financial instituions would buy these toxic loans, repackage them as CDOs, and sell them off to the next institution. It was really a matter of playing "musical chairs with a hot debt potato" with bad debt and whoever was left holding the bag when the music stopped was impacted. The subprime market was just another tool to get quick profits.
This is a matter of financial ethics and the banks who greedily dealt with subprime loans so they can sell them off to the next sucker is clearly at fault. In addition, those same individuals (whether they were prime and subprime) that signed these mortgage contracts should have done a bit more due diligence when reading a mortgage contract that is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Both are at fault, but the banks have been doing this since the S&L crisis and too many are looking to profit while putting people into a compromising position.
That banks had all the resources at their disposal to do the right thing and they didn't. This should be a lesson for many, especially those who buying homes in non-white neighborhoods.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Watcher Watchmen on 10/31/2010 1:12AM
A small part of your very interesting post that we’re having trouble with, is the following from your post:
No financial institutions should give out loans to clients who they know can't pay them back, but many banks did this because they knew that Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac or some other financial institutions would buy these toxic loans, repackage them as CDOs, and sell them off to the next institution.
We find it not-quite believable that blacks knowingly got loans they knew they couldn’t afford with some idiotic belief that Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac or some other financial institutions would buy these toxic loans.. That is really reaching for the gavel to think blacks would knowing do that. Sorry, but we disagree.
But for those blacks that did have issues with their payments, it’s more likely due to attempting to live as they did while as renters for several years.
There’s a certain never-ending homeowner responsibility that is not learned until actually becoming one and “SOME” New Homeowners seemed more psyched in becoming a homeowner than they did the responsibility package that comes with it.
Whereas being a homeowner, Unlike the world of being a renter, you are completely responsible for everything, inside and out!
As renters, things may get magically fixed with just a phone call. (if anything on renter’s part.) As a homeowner, things are magically fix, WHEN YOU FIX and/or HAVE IT FIXED AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE! Unlike being a renter, Lawns don’t become magically manicured, Snow dont become magically plowed out of your driveway and more. “SOME” Renters turned homeowners often gets awakened with a “responsibility shock.” But as for mortgage payments, some do and did adjust accordingly and are doing quite well. Others keep in contact with their Mortgagers and work out plans that made both parties satisfied and been in good standing ever since and a host of other success stories about black homeowners that no one knows about or even care to know about.
It’s disheartening how those blacks that are not doing so well gets all the attention over those who do, which then encourages a false sense that ALL blacks are having the same problem which is just not fair to the many blacks who are NOT apart of the problem.
What has hurt some blacks are the adjustable mortgages that starts out qualified and within budget, but then later, becomes adjusted out of budget and therein lays the problem and this is besides being charged higher interests rates than whites, for starters.
The generally lower interest rates for whites, compared to blacks, almost always puts whites in a better financial position to keep up with their mortgages, even after later being adjusted higher, it’s still more likely within their budget, even if by the skin of their teeth.
But for blacks, they generally start out at a higher interest rates than whites, and therefore start out with higher mortgage payments than whites, for the same house.
So when their adjustment period comes, they’re more likely adjusted up further into levels that most whites may never see.
In some arguments, higher interest rates are charges to blacks because of some laws of averages of whether blacks will pay it back. While counter arguments states that due to blacks receiving comparatively higher interest rates than whites, to begin with, only increases the vulnerability of blacks than it does for whites, for the same house.
So are these Mortgage biases actually advocating the very problems they’re trying not to have?
Therefore, how can one claim the problem of blacks ability to repay for reasons of being given comparably higher interests rates which then “ensure” the likelihood of the problem(s) to occur, that otherwise may not if given interest rates the same as whites.
While at the same time, Whites are given comparably lesser interest rates which then “ensures” their affordability, that otherwise may not have been so, if given interest rates the same as blacks.
Report This
By: hooubee4646 on 10/29/2010 3:59PM
You and your lot you are so ready to defend are the biggest LOSERS in the game whatever side you choose! Maybe, maybe not. You decide! Greed begets greed. No winners! Am I wrong?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Ms. D. on 10/30/2010 10:37AM
I think Black people need to start reading the fine print, and reading more on everything before they sign their life away. This Forclosure catastrophe could have been prevented if people would just stop seeing this "TO GOOD TO BE TRUE DEALS" as a godsend. For example the "INTEREST ONLY LOANS" and other loans, with these loans, when you're only paying the interest, how are your TAXES being paid when nothing is going towards the P&I. Everyone needs to read the information on MAKEING MILLIONS OF BLACK PEOPLE HOME OWNERS BEFORE THE YEAR 2010. This was a plan, and a trick that succeeded and back fired at the same time because people don't read enough. Always keep up with Real Estate information, they change the game on us every time you apply for an investment.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Watcher Watchmen on 10/31/2010 1:15AM
Which group(s) of Blacks are you referring to?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: John Lindsay on 10/31/2010 12:31PM
Malik: There are many reports that show whites with similar subprime worthy credit scores received prime loans.
JohnL: That also happened here in Lexington, KY.
A study of loans indicated that "at every credit level (excellent, good, fair, and poor) Blacks were given loans at higher rates than Whites with similar credit ratings."
Even Blacks with an Excellent credit rating were steered towards sub-prime loans.
In effect, nearly all Whites of any credit level...received a better interest rate than Black borrowers.
That is indeed racism....and has absolutley nothing to do with "reading the fine print."
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: John Lindsay on 10/31/2010 9:14AM
Malik: No financial institutions should give out loans to clients who they know can't pay them back, but many banks did this because they knew that Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac or some other financial institutions would buy these toxic loans, repackage them as CDOs, and sell them off to the next institution.
Watcher: We find it not-quite believable that blacks knowingly got loans they knew they couldn’t afford with some idiotic belief that Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac or some other financial institutions would buy these toxic loans.
JohnL: That is NOT what Malik wrote.
He said the "banks knew some borrowers could not pay them back."
You misinterpreted what Malik wrote.
Watcher: It’s disheartening how those blacks that are not doing so well gets all the attention over those who do, which then encourages a false sense that ALL blacks are having the same problem which is just not fair to the many blacks who are NOT a part of the problem.
JohnL: I definitely agree with you on this one!!!
That is stereotyping.
Two, Whites treat each other as individuals, but treat us, Latinos, Asians, and "Native"-Americans as "members of a group."
Hence, if I have worked my butt off to attain an Excellent Credit rating, but when I apply for a loan the loan officer "looks at my ethnicity" (group membership) rather than my "Excellent Credit rating" (individual effort)in determining what interest rate should be attached to my loan...that is racist bullshit.
Although a Black man was elected President, we are still living in a very racist nation.
Watcher: So are these Mortgage biases actually advocating the very problems they’re trying not to have?
JohnL; Agree again!!!
You've done an excellent job of describing the problem.
Very well done!!!
Hey Watcher, e-mail me at jclind2@msn.com
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Watcher Watchmen on 11/01/2010 10:38PM
@ Mr. John Lindsay.. you are correct!
our editors apologizes to you and Malik!
We are not of arrogance to admit misunderstandings.
Our aim is the naked truth!
Report This