Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
After extensive debate, the board of directors of the National Association of Realtors approved changes to the trade group’s hate speech policy Thursday morning.
The changes, which are effective immediately, remove references to hate speech; add a definition of harassment inspired by NAR’s Member Code of Conduct; and make the policy no longer applicable to all of a Realtor’s activities, but only those related to real estate.
The changes apply to the Realtor Code of Ethics’ Standard of Practice 10-5, which originally read: “Realtors must not use harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
NAR’s board of directors has 1,028 members, all of whom attended the meeting, according to NAR: 923 in person and 105 virtually. On Thursday, the NAR board voted 624-248 to change the policy to:
“Realtors, in their capacity as real estate professionals, in association with their real estate businesses, or in their real estate-related activities, shall not harass any person or persons based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
“As used in this Code of Ethics, harassment is unwelcome behavior directed at an individual or group based on one or more of the above protected characteristics where the purpose or effect of the behavior is to create a hostile, abusive, or intimidating environment which adversely affects their ability to access equal professional services or employment opportunity.”
In addition, on Wednesday, NAR’s Executive Committee approved a revision to Policy Statement 29 of the NAR Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual. The change narrows the Code of Ethics’ applicability so that Realtors would be encouraged, but not required, to follow the code “in all of their activities.” That amendment reads:
“While Realtors are encouraged to follow the principles of the Code of Ethics in all of their activities, a Realtor shall be subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Ethics only with respect to their capacity as real state professionals, in association with their real estate businesses, or in their real estate-related activities.”
The original 10-5 policy was approved in 2020. A Realtor who violates the policy is charged under Article 10 of the Code of Ethics, which prohibits denying equal professional services to anyone in those protected classes.
The Professional Standards Committee recommended the changes to the board after approving them at their meeting Tuesday. The committee’s rationale to the board stated that 10-5’s previous “broadly-written” language was a “confusing application” to Article 10.
“This has resulted in legal challenges across the country challenging both the language and application of Standard of Practice 10-5 to Article 10,” Todd Beckstrom, the committee’s chair, told the board.
“The proposed changes provide much needed clarity to members so that they can better understand and comply with Article 10, bring Article 10 in line with similar ethical requirements applied by other large trade associations across the country, and reduce risk to state and local associations and their volunteer leadership who administer and enforce Article 10,” the committee added.
There was one motion from a director on the floor to modify the proposed change to 10-5 to eliminate the addition of “in their capacity as real estate professionals, in association with their real estate businesses, or in their real estate-related activities” from the proposal.
“The language does not address the nuances in particular of social media where a lot of us do our marketing,” the director said.
“It is very difficult to define specifically what are real estate-related activities when you are using social media to market yourself.”
“I do not believe we elevate the brand by allowing our members …to tarnish the Realtor R by harassing and using hate speech,” she added, prompting many in the room to cheer and clap loudly.
The motion ultimately failed, however, despite more speaking in favor of it than against it.
For example, NAR Executive Committee member and NAR director Craig Foley noted that under the preamble of the Realtor Code of Ethics, all Realtors pledge to observe the “spirit” of the Golden Rule “in all of their activities.”
Another director said the language limiting the policy to real estate activities “risk[s] creating loopholes that undermine our commitment to fairness, inclusion and professionalism.”
He also said the added language created ambiguity rather than clarifying and noted that he had asked for additional details on the mentioned legal challenges to the policy but had been denied.
“Without that transparency we’re being asked to vote without a comprehensive understanding,” he said.
Others in favor of the proposal as-is insisted Realtors should not be allowed to espouse hate speech at all because unlike salaried workers, “we are always on the clock” and Realtors promote themselves as Realtors in all areas of their lives.
An NAR director from Florida spoke for the original proposal, saying that 10-5 would continue to apply to a Realtor’s social media page even after the change was adopted.
“Every social media post that you put out there where your profile labels you as a Realtor with the brand of your brokerage is considered an advertisement, which is a real estate-related activity,” he said.
“So anything you are posting on your social media profile is considered a real estate activity, and would be brought under Article 10, Standard of Practice 10-5.”
Butch Leiber, an NAR director from Arizona, replied, “I want to see that in writing.” He asked for additional clarity from the committee on how the revised policy would be enforced.
NAR Senior Counsel Matt Troiani responded that NAR staff were “working very closely” with the Professional Standards Committee’s Interpretations and Procedures Advisory Board “to make sure there is comprehensive communication” of any changes to the code for members and to state and local associations so they can interpret the changes “most appropriately.”
A member of the advisory board spoke for the proposal as put forth by the committee, insisting that the proposal “does not dilute the code. It strengthens our ability to enforce the code.”
Other directors rejected the assertion that other professions don’t regulate behavior outside of business hours.
“My husband is a teacher,” one director noted. “If he uses hate speech on any platform, he is subject to dismissal.”
Another added that lawyers and members of the military are also held accountable for their behavior at all times.
Others said the proposal was a step backward, not forward; that the code of ethics had always previously been amended to expand, not narrow, protections for vulnerable groups; and that Realtors should hold themselves to a higher standard.
“Much of America is trying to get America to hate again and that’s not who we are as Realtors,” one director said.
NAR director Matt Difanis, who chaired the Professional Standards Committee in 2020 and was a champion of 10-5 when it was first proposed five years ago, spoke in favor of the changes. He told the board that 10-5 was originally intended to “go after weaponized hate speech” and that it hadn’t been “easy to come up with words to adequately capture the concept” but the committee had done the best it could.
Now, he stressed that “for a whole bunch of unfortunate reasons,” at NAR, harassment “is now a really well fleshed-out concept.” Difanis likely was referring to the harassment scandals that have plagued the trade group in recent years.
Difanis maintained that the newest committee proposal “constitutes a change to the letter, but not the spirit of 10-5” and said the revisions were necessary so that insurance companies would continue to cover local associations and the volunteer leaders that enforce the code.
“While I totally get that it feels like a rollback, it is not,” Difanis said. “It really is a clarification necessitated on the basis of some pretty unpleasant legal liabilities.”
After about an hour of debate, NAR director Jean Crosby made a motion to end debate that was approved by 89 percent of the directors present. The changes passed with 71 percent of the vote.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated with details from the board’s debate over the changes.
