This is based on the flawed reasoning that if there is a correlation between A and B, and another correlation between B and C, it necessarily follows that anything done to A is with the intent of affecting C, and in this premise, with an evil intent.
In this case the lending practices of the banks ("A") are products of the raw economics of the market interest rate, legal constraints or lack thereof, and permissive Federal loan guarantees that biased them in favor of making high risk loans in the first place ("B") since the Feds had already absorbed the principal risk, which enabled the banks to make shitty loans and then still resell them, with the inevitable economic consequences for the high-risk borrowers when the money train stopped. The fact that the population of high-risk borrowers in B correlated to being minority membership ("C") was a thing irrelevant to the bankers' decisions has been completely ignored.
Also ignored is the fact that our politicians like Frank and Dodd spearheaded and then protected the economically-unsound policies that set up the minority buyers for failure, so a much sounder argument could be made that either THEY are the racists here and out to destroy the Black and Hispanic middle classes, or, alternatively, that our popularly-elected Congress is a completely unfit tool for rational economic planning. Neither of those hypotheses would be sufficiently politically correct for a sociology prof in modern academia to pursue, of course, particularly at a point in time when their fellow Liberals have a stranglehold on both houses of Congress.
Bullshit studies like this do not add anything positive to the (Very, very well-earned) reputation of sociology as a fake science.
