National Review asks: Did WaMu fail because it employed minorities?
National Review’s Mark Krikorian notes that (1) Washington Mutual became the largest bank to fail in American history yesterday and (2) its last press release touted the fact that it was named one of America’s most diverse employers, having been “honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations”; for being “named [one of] the top 60 companies for Hispanics”; for “attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers”; for having “earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups”; and for being “named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine.”
While juxtaposing these two facts — (1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday — the National Review writer headlined his post: “Cause and Effect?” He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays.
The entire defense of the financial collapse is that banks were tricked into lending money to [greedy/lazy/stupid] poor people by the Clinton administration–no explaination of why the practice continued under free market hero GWB.
The CRA has been in existance for years and in no way does it tell banks hyper lever yourself and fail to provision for risk. This is a lie being advanced to create noise: cover for the real cause–deregulation and failure of the gatekeepers.