#NNPA BlackPress

Brown, Senate Democrats Press Upstart, Lenders for Answers Following Reports of Higher Interest Rates for Students of Minority-Serving Institutions

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction. Under the statute, lenders can be liable if they treat applicants differently based on a prohibited basis, such as race or national origin. In addition, lenders can also be liable if their practices have a disproportionate impact on a protected class.

Published

6 years ago

February 28, 2020

Oakland Post

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) (Photo: Marc Nozell from Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA /Wikimedia Commons)

WASHINGTON — Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) pressed Upstart and other lenders and service providers for answers following a report from the nonprofit Student Borrower Protection Center that lenders may be charging higher interest rates to students who graduated from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

“The report found that a graduate of Howard University, an HBCU, would be charged $3,499 more over the life of five-year loan than a similarly situated graduate of New York University. Based on the racial demographics at these schools, these findings raise serious concerns that Upstart’s use of educational data may have a disparate impact on borrowers of color,” the Senators wrote.

The Senators’ letter points to past concerns from regulators about the use of educational data to make credit decisions and calls on lenders to ensure that their underwriting practices comply with fair lending laws. The Senators pressed Upstart and lenders for answers to their questions by Feb. 27.

See the full text of the letter to Upstart below and the letters to lenders HERE and service providers HERE.

Dear Mr. Girouard:

We write to express concern about a recent report that found lenders’ use of educational data to make credit determinations could have a disparate impact on borrowers of color. While we encourage lenders to innovate to improve access to credit—particularly for marginalized borrowers who have been shut out of the credit system—all lenders must ensure that their underwriting practices comply with fair lending laws.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction.^[1] Under the statute, lenders can be liable if they treat applicants differently based on a prohibited basis, such as race or national origin.^[2] In addition, lenders can also be liable if their practices have a disproportionate impact on a protected class.^[3^]

For years, regulators have raised concerns that lenders’ use of educational data to make credit decisions could result in discrimination against minority borrowers.^[4] In 2007, then New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo criticized private student lenders’ consideration of a student’s school in determining creditworthiness and described the practice as “educational redlining.”^[5] In a 2012 report, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) investigated private student lenders’ use of a “cohort default rate” (CDR)—which measures the rate at which students at a given institution default on their student loans—when determining creditworthiness.^[6] The Bureau found that the “[u]se of CDR to determine loan eligibility, underwriting, and pricing may have a disparate impact on minority students by reducing their access to credit and requiring those minority students . . . to pay higher rates than are otherwise available to similarly creditworthy non-Hispanic White students at schools with lower CDRs.”^[7] And in 2014, the FDIC brought an enforcement action against Sallie Mae Bank and Navient Solutions Inc., which found that use of CDR in their credit-scoring model for the pricing of private student loans violated ECOA.^[8]

On February 5, 2020, the Student Borrower Protection Center issued a report finding that Upstart Network Inc.’s (Upstart) use of educational data resulted in borrowers who had graduated from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) paying more in interest and fees than similarly situated borrowers who graduated from non-minority serving institutions.^[9] For example, the report found that a graduate of Howard University, an HBCU, would be charged $3,499 more over the life of five-year loan than a similarly situated graduate of New York University. Based on the racial demographics at these schools,^[10] these findings raise serious concerns that Upstart’s use of educational data may have a disparate impact on borrowers of color.

Upstart has stated that it does not consider the specific school that a student attended when determining creditworthiness.^[11] But the company has acknowledged that its underwriting model considers “groups of schools that have similar economic outcomes and educational characteristics.”^[12] In other words, Upstart appears to be assessing creditworthiness based on non-individualized factors, which the CFPB, FDIC, and New York Attorney General have found raise fair lending concerns.

So that we can better understand how Upstart has used educational data to make credit determinations, as well as how your company tests for and demonstrates compliance with fair lending laws, we request that Upstart provide responses to the following questions by February 28, 2020:

Describe how Upstart tests whether its credit determinations have a disparate impact on borrowers of a protected class under ECOA, and the results of any such testing.
Provide the following information about the use of “educational characteristics” used to determine the “groups of schools”^[13]in Upstart’s model, including:
1. Each “educational characteristic[]” considered by Upstart;
2. An explanation of how Upstart selected each characteristic;
3. An explanation of how and the extent to which the educational characteristics factor into credit determinations.
Provide the following information about the use of “economic outcomes” to determine the “groups of schools” used in Upstart’s model^[14]:
1. Each “economic outcome[]” considered by Upstart;
2. An explanation of how Upstart selected each outcome;
3. An explanation of how and the extent to which they factor into credit determinations
Provide any other relevant detail regarding how these “groups of schools” were formulated, including what metrics and cutoffs are used to determine the groups.
Provide detail on the number and characteristics of the “groups” constructed for your underwriting model, including:
1. The number of groups;
2. A list of the names or identifiers used to signify each individual group;
3. The total number of schools across all groups;
4. The number of schools in each individual group;
5. The total # of MSIs, including:
  1. The number of HBCUs;
  2. The number of HSIs;

The number of AANAPISI-serving institutions;

The number of women’s colleges; and
The proportion of existing MSIs and women’s colleges in the U.S. that are in each bucket.

Provide an explanation, supported by analysis, describing how grouping impacts credit determinations, including:
1. How each “group” is tiered with regard to credit determinations; and
2. How distributions of approval rates, financing fees, and interest rates charged to borrowers differ across “groups.”
Provide an explanation, supported by analysis, describing the impact that school grouping has on credit determinations for similarly situated borrowers across demographic groups.
Identify the sources of any data concerning the relationship between educational characteristics and economic outcomes used by your model.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Please contact Jan Singelmann, Counsel for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, at Jan_Singelmann@banking.senate.gov with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

^[1] See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, age, because all or part of an applicant’s income derives from public assistance, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act).

^[2] 12 CFR Part 1002 Supp. I Sec. 1002.4(a)-1; 12 CFR Part 1002 Supp. I Sec. 1002.4(a)-1. “Disparate treatment” may be “overt” (when the creditor openly discriminates on a prohibited basis) or it may be found by comparing the treatment of applicants who receive different treatment for no discernable reason other than a prohibited basis. In the latter case, it is not necessary that the creditor act with any specific intent to discriminate.

^[3] See 12 C.F.R. pt. 1002, Supp. 1, § 1002.6, ¶ 6(a)-2.

^[4] In addition, according to a recent article, private student lenders that are members of the Consumer Bankers Association do not use alternative underwriting standards due to the risk of discriminating against borrowers. See https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-advocates-worry-your-college-major-could-affect-your-ability-to-get-a-loan-2019-07-24.

^[5] See https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19loans.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. He also specifically criticized one lender that “divided colleges into groups based on how their alumni repaid federally subsidized loans . . . .” Id.

^[6] CFPB Report: Private Student Loans (Aug. 29, 2012) at 79-80, available at

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_Reports_Private-Student-Loans.pdf.

^[7] Id. at 80.

^[8] In re Sallie Mae Bank, Consent Order, No. FDIC-13-0366b, FDIC-13-0367k (filed May 13, 2014), available at https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2014/salliemae.pdf.

^[9] https://protectborrowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Education-Redlining-Report.pdf.

^[10] According to the Student Borrower Protection Center data from the U.S. Department of Education, 89 percent of students at Howard University are African American, while African Americans and Latinos the comprise less than 20 percent of the students at NYU. See https://protectborrowers.org/new-report-finds-educational-redlining-penalizes-borrowers-who-attended-community-colleges-and-minority-serving-institutions-perpetuates-systemic-disparities/.

^[11] See https://www.upstart.com/blog/upstarts-commitment-to-fair-lending.

^[12] Id.

^[13] See supra n. 11.

^[14] Id.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

OP-ED: Why “green buildings” are a civil rights issue

Don't Miss

Congress Passes Historic Anti-Lynching Legislation

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

Published

1 week ago

August 3, 2026

bpusa-syndication

Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

I call BS!

The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

Where is Congress?

Its silence has become deafening.

Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

This is not military reform. It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

That is not meritocracy. It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

Their records speak for themselves.

The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

Diversity is not a concession. It is a strategic advantage.

The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

That weakens morale. It weakens recruitment. It weakens retention.

And ultimately, it weakens national security.

Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

America deserves better. The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better. The Constitution deserves better.

And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

Jim Crow did not strengthen America. Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military. It will only diminish it

Wade Henderson
Strategic Advisor
Civil and Human Rights
wade@wadejhenderson.com

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

#NNPA BlackPress

New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial

By Emilie St. John (Contributor) Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction. Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District […]
The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 weeks ago

July 31, 2026

Oakland Post

By Emilie St. John
(Contributor)

Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction.

Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District Judge John Roach Jr. from overseeing the appeals process.

Two hearings have been scheduled on the motion for Aug. 9 and 10 in the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney, Texas, according to Fox4 News.

On July 14, Senior Judge Sid L. Harle of the 226th District Court was assigned to preside over the defense’s motion to recuse Collin County Judge John Roach. The assignment took effect immediately and authorized Harle to handle all matters related to the recusal request, the filing read.

The Collin County District Attorney’s Office continues to defend its handling of the case by issuing a statement to NBC 5 DFW.

“The defendant’s new lawyers have filed a motion containing several inaccurate characterizations of the trial proceedings. The entire prosecution team and I conducted this trial ethically and in full compliance with the Court’s rulings and any agreements with defense counsel. We look forward to addressing these claims thoroughly in a Court of law in the coming weeks. The jury heard extensive evidence over the course of the trial and returned a unanimous verdict. We remain confident in that verdict and the fairness of the proceedings.”

Anthony’s new legal team, made up of appellate, civil rights, and criminal defense attorneys, was retained following Anthony’s conviction.

“Our responsibility is to determine whether a legal error occurred and to ensure that every issue supported by the record is fully and vigorously presented on appeal,” the team said in a statement.

“We recognize the profound loss suffered by one young man’s family and the uncertainty facing another, and we extend our respect to everyone whose lives have been forever changed by these events,” the release reads.

Anthony was charged with the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, April 2, 2025. Anthony has long maintained it was an act of self-defense.

The attorneys are representing Anthony pro bono. The nearly 200-page notice of appeal seeks a new trial because his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated.

“The cumulative and practical effect of these provisions was to exclude members of the public from proceedings at every stage,” the filing reads.

The filing also focused on an alleged “handshake deal” that kept Anthony from taking the stand in his defense.

The defense filing said the agreement was that the jury would not hear that Metcalf and his twin brother had been accused of racism and bullying in the past. In exchange, they also would not see Anthony’s cellphone records or his school disciplinary record, according to court documents reported by the Dallas Morning News.

Anthony’s former defense attorney, Mike Howard, said the defense relied heavily on that deal. The team chose not to ask certain questions of witnesses or call on a separate expert witness based on that agreement. It also abandoned plans to introduce testimony and evidence about the allegations against Metcalf and his brother.

Appellate attorney Russell Wilson is now handling post-trial proceedings and Anthony’s appeal. He recently sat down for an interview, stating, “The court committed multiple errors during the June murder trial, preventing him from receiving a fair trial.”

“You know, we file motions that we expect to prevail on, but we understand that there’s two sides to every story. And at the end of the day, it’ll be a judge that has to make these decisions, but we feel confident in the positions that we’re taking,” Wilson said during an interview with WFAA. “There were substantial issues that we thought a reviewing court needed to look at. We thought these were constitutional irregularities, and we could have them addressed now. And so, we put them into a motion for a new trial.”

Bree West, a former Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, found it startling that so little time was given to Anthony’s team for such a serious “life or death” situation.

“I do think that it’s really challenging that potentially a court decided that you have 10 minutes to make that level of decision when it has the potential of being life-altering,” said West during an interview with Fox 4 News.

Judge Harle is no stranger to high-profile cases, having presided over the prosecution of a police officer charged in connection with the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

Anthony was convicted on June 9 of the murder of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump!

WESTSIDE GAZETTE — The author criticizes Donald Trump’s rhetoric, noting his use of terms like “Dumbocrats” and “Communist” to describe Democrats and democracy. The column asserts that Trump’s current strategy involves creating doubt about midterm elections due to a lack of Republican agenda.
The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 weeks ago

July 31, 2026

Oakland Post

Frankly Speaking

Wow! Wow! Wow! The swamp drainers have truly stepped down to new levels of stupidity. You remember Weapons of Mass Destruction? We now have Weapons of Mass Distraction. Trump has introduced Dumbocrats and Communists into the conversation about Democrats and Democracy.

Trump lies so much, and his current strategy is to set up doubt about midterm elections because he and Republicans have no agenda!

He has no “Trump “ card, but Iran has a strait! He called it a skirmish; it’s now a War. He said five days; now it’s five months. He said few casualties; now it’s 18 deaths. He knew nothing about Project 2025 but hired its architects! Trump lies about the lies and often forgets these little inventions called cameras and phones

We see and hear and then see and hear the inconsistencies.

I didn’t like 45 and dislike 47 even more!

The post LSMFT! Lord Save Me From Trump! appeared first on The Westside Gazette.

Based on reporting by Westside Gazette.

The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.