There is a race correlation (factually speaking) if 30 out of 30 individuals in bankruptcy court are black and/or Hispanic because statistically speaking, that should happen less than 1% of the time. It was either a massive anomaly or there is a connection in some way, shape or form to race.

To draw poverty statistics from the US Census (via Wikipedia):

The US Census declared that in 2008 13.2% of the general population lived in poverty:
8.6% of all non-Hispanic White
11.8% of all Asian-American
23.2% of all Hispanic (of any nationality)
24.2% of all American Indian and Alaska Native
24.7% of all African-American.

About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white, but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and other minorities.

The Wikipedia article goes on to say that nearly 60% of non-Hispanic white poverty is rural, but that would mean that 40% of non-Hispanic white poverty is urban. This would mean that theoretically one in five people in the court (or 6 people of 30) should have been white, going by those statistics.

Therefore, we can see a factual deviation from the statistical average of expected racial backgrounds for the individuals in court. While the sample size is small, there is a correlation. I don't know why you deny this.

You then go on to say:



First, history beyond a few generations is irrelevant to this discussion. Second, higher poverty among blacks and Hispanics isn't a "racist argument", it's a fact (see statistics above). It would be racist to say that their poverty rates are higher because they are somehow inferior to other groups, but not to note the simple facts.

Finally, poverty rates alone are not good indicators of who will declare bankruptcy. As someone else pointed out, bankruptcy is usually something that happens when someone had money and then lost it. It only sounded as though one or two of the people were engaging in outright fraud to get the loans that bankrupted them. The rest had money, then got in over their heads.