May 15, 2021|CFPB, Fair Lending, Mortgage Industry, Summer camps, Virus Response
Politics and Science
SharpieGate, the Twitterverse tempest[1]where a map of Hurricane Dorian’s path was altered to conform to Donald Trump’s comment that it was heading for Alabama when it wasn’t, must never be repeated because, um, “Science cannot be made to bend its knee to a politician’s nonsense” (or some other “Science must be unbiased!” truism). Expert scientific data and conclusions must be free from politics!
So it is that the Biden administration is going to do something about this problem. Last week’s headline read, New White House Panel Aims to Separate Science, Politics | Political News | US News.[2] Yes! A federal panel will make sure that never again will politics incite unscientifically promoted things; like injecting bleach to cure COVID or protesting nuclear power to stop global warming![3]…, Ok, Millennials.
CDC Eviction Ban Science?
Is the separation of science from politics really possible? Well, if science is going to replace religion as our spiritual faith[4], it had better try harder. The truth is that scientists often seem to lose their religion (science/minds) when they don’t realize they have stepped out of their areas of expertise. To them I say, “stay in your lane Bro’”.[5]
For example, public health experts all seem to agree that the best ways to minimize COVID-19 dangers are by, (i) vaccinating, (ii) being in well-ventilated or outdoor areas, (iii) socially distancing, and (iv) wearing a mask. Which one or more of those things are evicted people prevented from doing? Yet, CDC puts on the mantle of science and claims that evictions raise the danger of COVID-19 spread. Ok, but the same logic applies to leaving your house for any reason at all, so why just prohibit leaving the house due to eviction?
CDC Guidance Overreach
I was willing to give CDC scientists a lot of slack early in the pandemic since there was so much we didn’t know. Frankly, many scientists deserve nothing but accolades for their work and research in developing vaccines and other COVID-19 responses. In 2021, however, CDC has seemed a bit out of touch in its guidance; limiting risk without recognizing the effects of vaccines, treatments, and risks to different populations (see e.g., Experts: CDC’s Summer-Camp Rules Are ‘Cruel,’ ‘Irrational’ (nymag.com)[6] Even Dr. Fauci said those camp guidelines were too stringent[7]. Likewise, CDC has extended the eviction moratorium twice. On March 29, that was extended until June 30. Finally, last Thursday, it appeared CDC came to its senses issuing guidance saying that fully vaccinated people didn’t need to wear masks indoors anymore. It’s unclear if that about-face was due to political pressure to encourage more vaccinations, but what about the camp guidelines and eviction bans in light of that science?
Meanwhile, on May 5, DC District Court Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, overturned the CDC eviction ban. As my readers know, this isn’t a normal legal blog that typically parses in detail how or why a judge said, “blah, blah, blah” about a legal issue, so that DC judge’s opinion won’t get that kind of analysis here. Still, it can be important to discuss what a judge said in a legal decision,[8] but this isn’t so complex an issue. It’s really just about lane crossing that illustrates a broader point for “expert” government agencies generally. Likewise, others[9]are asking similar questions about CFPB’s lane crossing on the related eviction notice requirements which are derivative of the CDC eviction ban.
Bending Science to Politics
Despite multiple judges invalidating the CDC’s eviction ban for various reasons, the federal government appears to be going to bat[10]to appeal the DC Court’s decision. Why? ‘Science!”, says the government. Brian Boynton, acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, responded to Judge Friedrich’s decision by donning the cloak of science in his statement to the press. Said Boynton, “Scientific evidence shows that evictions exacerbate the spread of COVID-19, which has already killed more than half a million Americans, and the harm to the public that would result from unchecked evictions cannot be undone,” [11]
To be clear, COVID-19 has killed too many people and there may be some very good social justice reasons for allowing people to stay in their homes because pandemic related unemployment has caused unfair hardships. But, that’s got nothing to do with the science of whether evictions really spread COVID-19. I appreciate Boynton’s alliterative style (“evidence shows that evictions exacerbate”), but with this eviction ban, the government is bending science to politics in the same way hundreds of public health officials said protesting racial inequities last summer was more important than COVID-19 safety. More scientifically principled (less obviously social justice related) edicts for CDC might have been to make sure every person in danger of eviction gets priority access to vaccinations or by issuing homeless shelter masking and social distancing guidelines.[12]
Credibility and Faith
Unfortunately, lots of people in government on both sides of the aisle are flat out lying these days and hiding their political motivations. The dangerous false stolen election narrative and the shameful actions of New York Governor Cuomo are two examples. Liz Chaney just lost her position in her party because her peers didn’t like her speaking the truth so much. We’ve come to expect that kind of stuff from politicians, but scientists need to be above that, right? So, it is important to recognize that science, too, relies on faith to be believed and that faith depends on credibility. An unelected independent government agency tarnishes its credibility (and maybe violates the Constitution too) when it conflates science with social justice. Those instances must be exposed and highlighted like that Sharpie modified hurricane map exposed whatever nonsense that exposed. Likewise, the CFPB risks its own credibility when it issues rules in the name of data and disclosure that are really just based on a few unelected policymakers’ personal agendas and views of fairness.
[1] This is simultaneously an alliteration and a double entendre.
[2] In the political section of the news, mind you.
[3] Injected bleach will kill you right along with the COVID. Nuclear power has virtually no carbon emissions, so it is a viable option to mitigate global warming-you just have to deal with the spent rods and risk of meltdown. If you believe global warming is an existential threat, you should be willing to consider nuclear power as an alternative.
[4] I feel like this is topic that deserves more than a footnote, but it’s just too off topic for these Musings. I’m trying to stay in my lane.
[5]TSA got into the act too and extended its masking requirement for airports and other travel until mid-September because … terrorism???
[6] As mentioned in prior Mortgage Musings, I also have a thriving niche legal practice representing summer camp owners in connection with purchase and sale transactions and other issues.
[7]The CDC camp guidance requires vaccinated counselors and kids to wear masks outdoors during activities. Why?
[8]For example, I’ll never miss a chance to talk about Justice Kavanaugh’s” blah blah blah” from the PHH case about RESPA interpretation in this blog or my speaking engagements.
[9] This outstanding mortgage banking attorney asks these kinds of questions much more diplomatically than I am capable of. His Linked-In post helped inspire this Musings edition.
[10] I like the use of “going to bat” here. So many possible meanings.
[11]Boynton’s out of court comment reminds me of Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell’s fervent out of court statements about the “stolen election”. What is the “scientific evidence” that the government will present in court about how evictions cause COVID-19 spread? Meanwhile, Powell’s defense about her out of court statements in a defamation case against her was that no reasonable person should believe her out of court statements. As with scientists, credibility for lawyers can be easily lost.
[12] There is a short slippery slope with homeless shelter guidance that leads directly to migrant shelters too, so that could explain why no “science-based“ guidelines about shelters were forthcoming from CDC.