Cultural Differences and Discrimination: Samoans Before a Public Housing Eviction Board

Lempert and Monsma’s article “Cultural Differences and Discrimination: Samoans Before a Public Housing Eviction Board” investigates whether or not Samoans experience cultural discrimination from the Hawaii Housing Authority’s (HHA) eviction board. The authors employ several quantitative models, with mixed results. Rather than simply stating that being Samoan makes one more likely to be evicted, the authors delve deeper and seek qualitative evidence. They interview some of the board members of the HHA, as well as prosecutors and project managers. What they found was that Samoan culture dictated that a “good Samoan” sends money home to the family when there is a wedding or funeral (as well as other reasons); this leaves some Samoans with little money for rent, and they end up before the HHA. Unfortunately, the types of reasons that Samoans offered up for not paying rent were incongruent with those more readily accepted by the HHA, due to cultural differences. Many board members expressed empathy with their plight and circumstances but claimed to treat the Samoans as equal to others. Excuses offered that were more acceptable to the board included illness, medical expenses, burglary/robbery, and other sudden turns of fortune. One case was presented in which an individual claimed that a male had lost his finger, but her insurance could not cover the bills, as he was not her son; so she paid the bill in cash. Then, when she had the cash, it was stolen from her locker at work, leaving her unable to pay her bills, including her rent. The board seemed to accept this excuse, because it sounds like the individual did everything in her power to provide for her personal responsibilities and expenses. The Samoan culture, however, has a different idea of personal responsibilities and expenses, and considers obligations that are outside of our cultural frame of reference. The authors ask, “Does this privileging of culturally familiar excuses over culturally unfamiliar ones constitute discrimination? From a broad sociological perspective one can answer yes” (Lempert and Monsma 906). Thus, the discrimination is cultural, because it is slanted to those in the popularly accepted culture and makes no allowance for people like Samoans, who have different ideals and obligations.

What interested me in this article is the idea of personal responsibility. The authors talk about Samoans’ excuses and claim, “To Westerners, these kinds of expenditures seem to be within a person’s control; but to Samoans they may seem every bit as compelling as the need to pay doctors’ bills” (Lempert and Monsma 901). The cultural idea behind personal responsibility – and to whom one has obligations – is a unique idea, simply because I have seldom, if ever, read about it. It is intriguing to think that one might be penalized for feeling accountability for one’s family. In the article, the woman who paid for her son’s medical bills was accepted in her excuse; however, the Samoans’ familial obligations appear to go above and beyond the call of duty, to Americans. It is perhaps due to the nature of the Samoans’ reasons – funerals, weddings, or traveling back to Samoa when needed. One’s perceived priorities, then, are judged and weighted against the cultural norm. I understand that the system is in place to be fair to all, but when we call America the great melting pot and expect people to quickly assimilate to our cultural ideals, it seems hypocritical to welcome them conditionally. Rather than looking to our laws and seeing how they might better suit many cultures – as in the case of the HHA eviction board – we stick by our ideals and never question how they might be adapted to suit more needs. I don’t have any answers here, only questions and criticisms (surprise, surprise), but I find myself irked that the U.S. is supposed to be a place where people come for refuge but, culturally, there is little to be found.