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.