The current mortgage crisis does not lack for finger pointing. The most troubling accusations come from those who have confused irresponsible lending with efforts to provide equal access to credit.

A recent example can be found in an Oct. 6 Post-Gazette column by Ruth Ann Dailey: "The subprime mortgage mess is primarily the result of left-wing wishes becoming political practice."

Subprime loans are designed to provide credit to borrowers with a flawed or limited credit history. They have a higher interest rate than a prime loan in order to compensate for the increased risk of default assumed by the lender. What critics like Ms. Dailey claim is that the subprime train wreck was the result of federal regulations that forced banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers.

Indeed, the federal government has imposed regulations on the lending industry. These efforts were spawned, in part, by decades of systematic discrimination by lenders who denied credit opportunities to qualified homeowners. These discriminatory practices have resulted in persistent disparities in black and white home ownership rates and consequent levels of wealth. In fact, lending discrimination has affected whole neighborhoods, as minority communities were graphically identified as places not to do business. Such "redlining" practices have helped ensure blighted minority neighborhoods.

In order to address these inequities and ensure fair access to lending, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. The purpose is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities, to underserved populations. The CRA requires banks to extend credit in low- and moderate-income communities, in accordance with "the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

CRA lending has led to the creation of businesses and jobs, decent and affordable housing for seniors, accessible housing for persons with disabilities and participation in the American dream of homeownership for many families, especially families of color.

Unfortunately, unequal lending practices continue and a range of studies show that a disproportionate number of minorities wind up with risky subprime loans.

A recent Federal Reserve Board study found that the likelihood of receiving a subprime home loan increases as the percentage of blacks in a census tract increases, after controlling for credit risk. A similar study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that subprime lending rose with the proportion of black and elderly residents in a neighborhood, even after holding credit risk and housing stock characteristics constant. A study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development of Chicago neighborhoods found that in predominantly black areas, subprime refinance loans constituted 48 percent of lending activities; in comparable white areas, only 8 percent of loans were subprime.

The patterns are disturbingly consistent. A California study found that black and Hispanic borrowers were at least twice as likely to hold subprime loans as their white counterparts with the same incomes. These disparities widened as income increased. Another Chicago study showed that the odds of obtaining a prime loan were the same for white borrowers with incomes below 80 percent of the area median as they were for black borrowers with incomes exceeding 120 percent of the median.

The bottom line is that discriminatory lending practices have resulted in minority homeowners holding risky subprime loans because conventional loans -- for which many were qualified -- were not made available.

There is no evidence to show, as Ms. Dailey and many conservative commentators have argued, that CRA requirements caused lenders to make the risky subprime loans that contributed to the current crisis. In fact, studies by the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve show that the CRA has significantly improved the availability of fair and affordable credit and services without negatively affecting the safety and soundness of financial institutions. Studies also indicate that CRA-covered banks and thrifts were significantly less likely than other lenders to make high-cost subprime loans.

An analysis of 2006 data shows that non-CRA lenders made a disproportionate number (84.3 percent) of high-cost loans in the 15 largest metropolitan areas. The Federal Reserve found that in 2005, 34.3 percent of home purchase loans issued by non-CRA mortgage companies were high-cost loans, while the percentage for CRA-covered institutions was just 5.1 percent.

Other reports show that only a few of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 were institutions with CRA obligations. The vast majority of the top 20 producers of risky interest-only and optional Adjustable Rate Mortgages were not covered by CRA.

Rather than pinning the current financial crisis on the rules designed to end unfair lending practices, policy makers should work together to improve regulatory oversight for all lenders, promote access to credit for all qualified home buyers and prevent a repeat of the practices that helped create this crisis.