Image 01 Image 03

Racial and Ethnic Campus Housing “Steering” at U. Nevada (Reno) Challenged by Equal Protection Project

Racial and Ethnic Campus Housing “Steering” at U. Nevada (Reno) Challenged by Equal Protection Project

The use of the Fair Housing Act through HUD complaints reflects how innovative EPP is in rooting out the DEI discrimination that permeates campuses.

The Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org) has challenged over 275 institutions regarding over 800 programs and scholarships.

We have paved the way to also challenge campus race- and ethnicity-based housing by filing complaints under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has jurisdiction over FHA violations. Two of our complaints, against the University of Connecticut and University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) already have resulted in HUD opening formal investigations, the first big step in any case. See our prior post, HUD Moves Against Race-Focused College Housing After Complaints by Equal Protection Project.

We have filed a third complaint, against the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR).

From the UNR HUD Complaint:

This is a federal civil rights complaint and request for investigation against the University of Nevada, Reno (“UNR”) submitted pursuant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (“FHEO”) discrimination complaint resolution procedures….

We bring this complaint and request for investigation against UNR for operating four discriminatory university housing programs that use race- and ethnicity-based descriptions and promotional materials to steer students based on race, color, and national origin, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). Moreover, the programs are each named utilizing the racial identities of their suggested racial participants:

• Asian Pacific Islanders;
• Black Scholars;
• “Indigenous;” and
• Latinx.2

These discriminatory housing programs violate the FHA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We go on to detail the facts as to each program, and why such programs constitute unlawful “steering” even if other racial and ethnic groups are not physically barred.

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to “make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.”6 Under applicable Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations enforcing the FHA, this kind of “steering” toward or away from housing based on race is strictly prohibited.7 Steering liability attaches even if the housing program does not physically bar members of other racial or ethnic groups from participating.

Specifically, where ads or other publicly available information to potential applicants would cause a reasonable non-member of a given group to conclude that a given program is not intended for them, likely causing them to forgo applying, such steering violates the FHA. Even subtle messaging can convey these kinds of discriminatory preferences and steer potential applicants away. Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995, 999–1000 (2d Cir. 1991); Jancik v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 44 F.3d 553, 556 (7th Cir. 1995); Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 943 F.2d 644, 646 (6th Cir.1991); Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C.Cir.1990); United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 215 (4th Cir. 1981)….

UNR’s identity-based Living Learning Communities (“ILLCs”) are university-sponsored residential programs that allow students to live together while participating in shared programming centered on a common identity. According to UNR, these communities are intended to create spaces where students can “engage in an appreciation of a shared identity” and “boost students’ sense of belonging” by connecting them with peers, the Multicultural Center, identity-based affinity groups, and other campus resources. Although UNR offers many residential communities organized around academic disciplines or other broadly shared interests, it also operates several identity-based ILLCs whose stated missions and promotional materials are directed toward students of particular racial or ethnic backgrounds.8

In 2021, the Executive Director of Residential Life, Housing and Food Services stated that, for UNR’s identity-based communities, only students “who hold that identity” would be considered because, “for the safety of student participants, it is important only students who hold that identity are considered.”9 After that statement became public, the University asserted that the official had “misspoke” and clarified that the identity-based ILLCs are “open to any and all students living on campus.”10 Nonetheless, as discussed below, UNR’s current promotional materials continue to use race- and ethnicity-based descriptions and identity-specific messaging that would lead an ordinary prospective student to understand these communities as intended for students of particular racial or ethnic identities.

In many programs at UNR and elsewhere we encounter a perfunctory statement that the housing is open to all students. But such a defense in the face of racial and ethnic steering, is not a legal excuse under the FHA:

UNR’s discriminatory ILLC Programs encourage, and/or deter, students from dormitory housing based on race, color, national origin, and therefore violate multiple provisions of federal law. Most obviously, these programs violate the Fair Housing Act because they classify and promote university housing based on race and national origin. Even if HUD were to conclude that the programs are not formally exclusionary, they independently violate the Act’s prohibition on discriminatory housing statements and racial steering.
Steering is “not an outright refusal to rent to a person within a class of people protected by the statute; rather it consists of efforts to deprive a protected home seeker of housing opportunities in certain locations.” Fair Housing Congress v. Weber, 993 F. Supp. 1286, 1293 (C.D.Cal.1997). Instead, as applicable here, illegal steering consists of “communicating to any prospective [resident] that he or she would not be comfortable or compatible with existing residents of a community, neighborhood or development.”20

Under this standard, no discriminatory intent is required by the seller or renter. Jancik v. HUD, 44 F.3d 553, 556 (7th Cir. 1995). Instead, whether a given statement constitutes illegal steering is whether the statement suggests a preference to “the ordinary reader or listener.” United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 215 (4th Cir.); Ragin, 923 F.2d at 1002 (An “ordinary reader is neither the most suspicious nor the most insensitive of our citizenry.”); Hous. Rts. Ctr. v. Donald Sterling Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1138 (C.D. Cal.), aff’d sub nom., Hous. Rts. Ctr. v. Sterling, 84 F. App’x 801 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Ragin, 923 F.2d at 999.

The disclaimer that the ILLCs are “open to all students living on campus” is not legally exculpatory given the pervasive race- and ethnicity-based promotion and signaling. Race- and ethnicity-based signaling is unlawful even if other groups are not absolutely excluded, much like the Asian students in the SFFA case, infra, suffered unlawful discrimination even though not completely excluded. If anything, this perfunctory disclaimer reflects a consciousness of guilt that UNR recognizes its housing practices are unlawful.

Despite the University’s claim that these housing programs are “open to any and all students,” all information that UNR provides on its housing website describing its discriminatory ILLC Programs clearly suggests a preference for a particular race, color and/or national origin. This information steers individuals (“ordinary readers”) towards and away from dormitory housing based on these preferences in violation of the FHA. This is true even if UNR in fact has no discriminatory intent.

The use of the FHA through HUD complaints reflects how innovative EPP is in rooting out the DEI discrimination that permeates campuses.

Reminder: we are a small organization going up against powerful and wealthy government and private institutions devoted to DEI discrimination. Donations are greatly needed and appreciated.

======================

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The thing is, it’s a bad law. Steering ought to be legal. It conveys valuable information to potential buyers or tenants, and can increase the value of the home by making them willing to pay more for it. But because of this stupid law they are deprived of that information and may end up buying or renting something less desirable to them, thus also depriving the owner or landlord of the premium they would have been willing to pay.

For instance, it is absurd that it’s illegal to advertise a home in a Jewish community by mentioning that it’s within walking distance of several synagogues, near kosher stores and Jewish schools, or that it’s within an eruv, even though these are all big selling points for many Jewish customers.

The law should be repealed. But so long as it is the law, these woke universities who support its application to everyone else should be made to live by it themselves too.

    Jaundiced Observer in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2026 at 11:40 pm

    In truly low-discrimination societies this viewpoint would be decent and uncontroversial.

    The author is correct in saying that such information is (probably) valuable to prospective buyers or renters.

    The author may be too young to remember or to have experienced housing discrimination that was communicated through steering messages. Congress determined that it wanted to end blatant housing discrimination and that leaving steering language to be legal would defeat that goal. Accordingly it forbade steering language in support of the overarching goal.

    If the author believes that steering language is merely informational and totally not meant or used to discriminate, he might ask his Congresscritter to submit the required legislation.

    That would require the author and Congresscritter to do meaningful work.

    The author might. I suspect that (s)he’s hardworking.

    The Congresscritter certainly would not.

    And this isn’t a job for the courts.

Bulletin boards often have hand written notices advertising rentals for asian female tenants, because landlords think they make better tenants. The landlords rarely get busted for these exclusionary practices. It seems to be selective enforcement of the law, only gets enforced against whites.

    Milhouse in reply to smooth. | July 20, 2026 at 12:04 pm

    As far as I know the law doesn’t apply to roommate situations. And that’s probably what you’re seeing.

    It seems to be selective enforcement of the law, only gets enforced against whites.

    That is just not true.

      smooth in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2026 at 12:19 pm

      That probably not what I’m seeing. This is just true. Troll harder.

        Milhouse in reply to smooth. | July 20, 2026 at 12:29 pm

        You’re the troll here. Your claim that the law is enforced only against white people is an outright lie.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | July 21, 2026 at 12:29 pm

      There’s no exception for roommate situations.

      I have an elderly cousin whose live-in sister died. Eventually, she wished to advertise for a female roommate to cover some of her living expenses, but was prevented from doing so, as none of the local news outlets would run her ad. She had to advertise for an unspecified roommate, then process useless applications from males that she was never going to accept. The only concession was that she was free to reject applicants for being male, as long as she never told them that that was a reason they had been rejected. How ludicrous.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 21, 2026 at 7:40 pm

        See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2012).

        There’s no indication that Congress intended to interfere with personal relationships inside the home. Congress wanted to address the problem of landlords discriminating in the sale and rental of housing, which deprived protected classes of housing opportunities. But a business transaction between a tenant and landlord is quite different from an arrangement between two people sharing the same living space. We seriously doubt Congress meant the FHA to apply to the latter. Consider, for example, the FHA’s prohibition against sex discrimination. Could Congress, in the 1960s, really have meant that women must accept men as roommates? Telling women they may not lawfully exclude men from the list of acceptable roommates would be controversial today; it would have been scandalous in the 1960s.

        […]

        [13] Because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raises substantial constitutional concerns, we interpret the FHA and FEHA as not applying to the sharing of living units. Therefore, we hold that Roommate’s prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection is not forbidden by the FHA or FEHA.