I guess the post below deals with the morality of class based segregation. This post attempts to expand the discussion on segregation across multiple groups.
The vast majority of the literature on racial segregation focuses on white-black segregation. In this post I want to write about the complicated spatial racial/ethnic patterning involving other racial and ethnic groups. This will almost certainly boil down to white, black, Latino, and Asian (while all of these groupings are ludicrous, Asian may be the most ludicrous of them all - I think about half of the world's population could be considered Asian).
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
freedom of choice in housing markets
If affordability was the only limitation faced by all households in housing markets, and everyone was able to afford relatively decent shelter, would housing markets not need any form of public intervention.
In this circumstance it is likely that segregation by social class would continue. Segregation by social class would result in some degree of racial segregation given the unequal SES across different racial and ethnic groups. But this would not be caused by a failure of the housing market.
Segregation by income is less extensive than segregation by race.
[this is nub for me to write more on later]
In this circumstance it is likely that segregation by social class would continue. Segregation by social class would result in some degree of racial segregation given the unequal SES across different racial and ethnic groups. But this would not be caused by a failure of the housing market.
Segregation by income is less extensive than segregation by race.
[this is nub for me to write more on later]
is segregation relevant
It seems, as I wrote below, that the question: Is segregation moral? is imbued with some power as well as some complications. Before considering the complications, I think it worthwhile to consider the relevancy of such a question (which has its own complications).
The question is relevant, at a very straight forward level, as it connected to public policy: It pertains to how our tax dollars are spent and which laws exist and which don't. Currently, and since the Fair Housing Act of 1968, there is legislation that bans discrimination in housing markets. Discrimination in housing markets can occur in at least two domains. First, certain groups can be forced to pay more for a dwelling. Second, certain groups may be steered away from particular dwellings. The first is about discrimination in terms of cost, the second is discrimination in terms of choice. (There is, of course, some overlap in these two domains, e.g. higher costs may limit choice, etc.)
If racial segregation is caused by a free choice by all households in a city then it is less likely to be morally problematic (although I will return to this point later), but, if segregation is forced by discriminatory acts that result in a lack of choice for some segments of the population then segregation is necessarily problematic (there may be some exceptions to this rule, something i may return to in another post). America's segregated urban areas are the direct result of lack of residential choice throughout most of the twentieth century for African American and other minority households. So this creates a further complication, America is segregated because of housing discrimination, but that does not mean that housing discrimination is the most powerful mechanism in today's housing market. Decades of racist urban development has left a legacy of separation not easily erased - even 40 years after the passage of the fair housing act. Metropolitan areas are still more segregated than they were 100 years ago.
There is evidence that suggests that minorities (particularly lower income immigrants and blacks) are harmed by segregation, it affects incarceration rates, single parenthood, and educational success.
Four points suggest the relevancy of the question of segregation's morality:
[still working on this nubsicle]
The question is relevant, at a very straight forward level, as it connected to public policy: It pertains to how our tax dollars are spent and which laws exist and which don't. Currently, and since the Fair Housing Act of 1968, there is legislation that bans discrimination in housing markets. Discrimination in housing markets can occur in at least two domains. First, certain groups can be forced to pay more for a dwelling. Second, certain groups may be steered away from particular dwellings. The first is about discrimination in terms of cost, the second is discrimination in terms of choice. (There is, of course, some overlap in these two domains, e.g. higher costs may limit choice, etc.)
If racial segregation is caused by a free choice by all households in a city then it is less likely to be morally problematic (although I will return to this point later), but, if segregation is forced by discriminatory acts that result in a lack of choice for some segments of the population then segregation is necessarily problematic (there may be some exceptions to this rule, something i may return to in another post). America's segregated urban areas are the direct result of lack of residential choice throughout most of the twentieth century for African American and other minority households. So this creates a further complication, America is segregated because of housing discrimination, but that does not mean that housing discrimination is the most powerful mechanism in today's housing market. Decades of racist urban development has left a legacy of separation not easily erased - even 40 years after the passage of the fair housing act. Metropolitan areas are still more segregated than they were 100 years ago.
There is evidence that suggests that minorities (particularly lower income immigrants and blacks) are harmed by segregation, it affects incarceration rates, single parenthood, and educational success.
Four points suggest the relevancy of the question of segregation's morality:
- Housing segregation continues (less severe than in 1970, more severe than in 1900)
- It is associated with worse outcomes for minorities
- It is the product of historical discrimination (and to some extent the ongoing minority constraints within housing markets)
- It is a public policy concern involving (limited) public expenditures as well as federal, state and local laws.
[still working on this nubsicle]
city as problem space - is segregation moral
On Saturday I went to a fun/interesting/challenging/frustrating workshop on transforming knowledge organized by two pretty inspiring philosophy grad students, Sarah Tyson and Carolyn Cusick. They had organized Elizabeth Minnich to come to the university as well as lined up a bunch of local folks to participate in panel discussions. The first panel on Saturday morning was great featuring Greg Horowitz, Jennifer Holt, Elizabeth Minnich, and Lucius Outlaw.
Lucius Outlaw told the story of Diane Nash, a black female Fisk student and an unofficial leader of the sit-in movement, asking the mayor of Nashville whether segregation was moral, the mayor responded with a definite no, and the course of the non-violent civil rights struggle had one of its first big wins, with Nashville's lunch counters becoming desegregated in the coming weeks. This question struck me, given that my research revolves around the dynamics of segregation in housing markets. Tony Brown had given me hell for not providing a satisfactory framework that could normatively evaluate current racial residential patterning in his comments on my earlier writings. In response, I fell back to, hey my purpose here is to describe the processes, from there people smarter than i can evaluate the multidimensional ethical components of where to go next. But Ms. Nash's question got me thinking and scribbling on my notepad (even though it seems that this was not exactly the question she asked).
Is segregation moral? - Diane Nash
is de jure segregation moral?
is de facto segregation moral?
is partial segregation moral?
is preference-based segregation moral?
The other day i saw an email about a special issue in the Berkeley Planning Journal titled The City as a Problem Space. The city as a problem space opens up using the city as a site for inquiry rather than a place of answers. A perfect grounding for pursuing the moral questions above. I think it is pretty clear that in that moment, that minute, that day, that year (1960), the answer to the question was obvious. That question was to be interpreted as the second iteration, is de jure segregation moral?
But if there is consensus today that de jure segregation is immoral, the questions that follow require more thought. The era of legal segregation has past, contemporary America is marked by de facto segregation, one that is not legally enforced by restrictive covenents in neighborhoods, or any city, state, or federal laws. In fact, laws exist that protect against these forms of apartheid. Nonetheless, American cities are far from completely integrated. Is this moral? Well to the extent that it is complete (it isn't) and to the extent that it is associated with negative outcomes for minorities (it is) and to the extent that it is forced upon minorities (it is and it isn't) it is clearly immoral: It would be clearly immoral if it weren't so doggone complicated.
Today, segregation in America's metropolises is formed by a racial ethnic segregation that is partially segmented by social class, that is associated with negative outcomes for blacks and low income immigrants, and that is partially produced by ethnocentric preferences (mostly by whites, but also among minority groups to some extent).
Is today's segregation moral?
Perhaps the City provides a space to explore this question, a fertile spatial delineation that shapes our understanding of race, ethnicity, and so much else. In fact, it is probably impossible to explore this question outside of the realities of our urban landscapes. But if it is imperative to use the urban landscape to pursue this question, do we use the California's mosaic metropolises, the largely biracial and declining rustbelt towns and cities of the midwest and northeast, the bursting southeastern cities with their lower levels of segregation and history of Jim Crow? Or can we use the sum of information from the unique dynamics of each space to better inform our line of inquiry? That is, by exploring the differences across places, rather than dynamics within place, do we uncover more useful understandings of this moral question?
Of course, these forced choices are ridiculous. One can learn much from focused examination of one city, just like one can learn much from comparative analysis across cities.
So is today's segregation moral?
A proper answer will require a lot more thought and writing, tbc.
Lucius Outlaw told the story of Diane Nash, a black female Fisk student and an unofficial leader of the sit-in movement, asking the mayor of Nashville whether segregation was moral, the mayor responded with a definite no, and the course of the non-violent civil rights struggle had one of its first big wins, with Nashville's lunch counters becoming desegregated in the coming weeks. This question struck me, given that my research revolves around the dynamics of segregation in housing markets. Tony Brown had given me hell for not providing a satisfactory framework that could normatively evaluate current racial residential patterning in his comments on my earlier writings. In response, I fell back to, hey my purpose here is to describe the processes, from there people smarter than i can evaluate the multidimensional ethical components of where to go next. But Ms. Nash's question got me thinking and scribbling on my notepad (even though it seems that this was not exactly the question she asked).
Is segregation moral? - Diane Nash
is de jure segregation moral?
is de facto segregation moral?
is partial segregation moral?
is preference-based segregation moral?
The other day i saw an email about a special issue in the Berkeley Planning Journal titled The City as a Problem Space. The city as a problem space opens up using the city as a site for inquiry rather than a place of answers. A perfect grounding for pursuing the moral questions above. I think it is pretty clear that in that moment, that minute, that day, that year (1960), the answer to the question was obvious. That question was to be interpreted as the second iteration, is de jure segregation moral?
But if there is consensus today that de jure segregation is immoral, the questions that follow require more thought. The era of legal segregation has past, contemporary America is marked by de facto segregation, one that is not legally enforced by restrictive covenents in neighborhoods, or any city, state, or federal laws. In fact, laws exist that protect against these forms of apartheid. Nonetheless, American cities are far from completely integrated. Is this moral? Well to the extent that it is complete (it isn't) and to the extent that it is associated with negative outcomes for minorities (it is) and to the extent that it is forced upon minorities (it is and it isn't) it is clearly immoral: It would be clearly immoral if it weren't so doggone complicated.
Today, segregation in America's metropolises is formed by a racial ethnic segregation that is partially segmented by social class, that is associated with negative outcomes for blacks and low income immigrants, and that is partially produced by ethnocentric preferences (mostly by whites, but also among minority groups to some extent).
Is today's segregation moral?
Perhaps the City provides a space to explore this question, a fertile spatial delineation that shapes our understanding of race, ethnicity, and so much else. In fact, it is probably impossible to explore this question outside of the realities of our urban landscapes. But if it is imperative to use the urban landscape to pursue this question, do we use the California's mosaic metropolises, the largely biracial and declining rustbelt towns and cities of the midwest and northeast, the bursting southeastern cities with their lower levels of segregation and history of Jim Crow? Or can we use the sum of information from the unique dynamics of each space to better inform our line of inquiry? That is, by exploring the differences across places, rather than dynamics within place, do we uncover more useful understandings of this moral question?
Of course, these forced choices are ridiculous. One can learn much from focused examination of one city, just like one can learn much from comparative analysis across cities.
So is today's segregation moral?
A proper answer will require a lot more thought and writing, tbc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)