Noah: The Merits of Optional Integration

By


(Really sorry for the late post, thinking of what to post took me much longer than anticipated)


I think the key to promoting a residential integration account to solving concentrated disadvantage is clarifying what one is advocating for is optional residential integration. 


The reason I side with Shelby taking issue with Anderson’s account is because “she suggests that evidence [in favor of integration] as decisive and suggests that this evidence entitles state officials and institutional authorities to override the residential preferences… of blacks who reject integration” (72). 


But from my opinion, Shelby is too quick to “doubt that residential integration is a necessary means to [a multicultural society of equals]” (79). I see the benefits of an optional residential integration as a tool to use alongside community development to reduce inequality. I think Shelby would agree with this opinion, but he somewhat rejects the melting-pot ideal of integration I don’t think he needs to. 


Shelby reasons that “Insofar as it is reasonable to expect a reduction in racial prejudice [from integration], this reduction will take time, and even then, it is not clear how long it would take to reach tolerable levels” (71).

I am of the opinion that provided a proper system of integration (likely run as a government program) is set up, immediately tolerable levels of prejudice are possible. The integration system should implement new community members as seamlessly as possible. This means that proper education on systemic and implicit racism is implemented within the white communities beforehand, and also means that black members within these community members have other affinity groups with shared experiences to form community with. If these systems are not enough to fulfill the goal of black residents to enter communities without overdue burden, black members should have free and easy access to move back into their previous living arrangement in their previous community. There should be little risk and great gain created my a system of proper integration.


Shelby also claims that “Unlike in schools or the military, there is no overarching power with the authority to effectively demand cooperation across racial lines or between social classes. Affluent whites and poor blacks don’t share the same social status or similar lifestyle, and thus they often perceive their interests as at odds” (71). While there is no guarantee that white members of integrated communities will indeed welcome poor black individuals, there are areas within a community—church, public parks, farmers markets—which naturally incentivize community. I am hesitant to say that the white pastor of a church or a middle school teacher would find the gap lifestyle gap between these two groups so large as to reject one from its practices. This perspective most likely stems from my bias as a white person, but I have some faith that integration does not need to lead to racial hostility, and that adequately implemented social institutions would fill the gaps where an overarching power like the military could not. 


Shelby moves on to asks that if material, educational, social conditions are equal, “why, under these more just circumstances would it be so important that whites and black live together in the same neighborhoods?” (71).

He makes clear that contact in workplaces, marketplaces, and educational contexts would exist, and social media connection is rampant, so there would seem to be no need to insist that neighborhoods share racial diversity. Frankly, I find something intrinsically valuable about a diverse community. At CMC, (which is sadly the most diverse community I have lived in), the insight I have gained from listening to others’ lived experiences has given me an enhanced global education. Between two ideal scenarios: 

1. Where black communities are provided the support they need to reach equality, forming profitable businesses and powerful educational institutions within racial walls, or 2. Where we have the same equality within instances of mixed integrated communities and elevated ghettos, the second seems like a more preferable option because of the communal insight shared from incorporating different lived experiences. 


The most pressing critique of the integrationist perspective is that black individuals will have to carry the burdens of implementing themselves in new communities that can be hostile, while the benefits of the arrangement are insecure. I believe that there are societal conditions one can put forth to avoid these consequences: a proper system of integration, free flow to and from white communities, and communal institutions to create common experience. I also feel the possibilities of racially diverse neighborhoods are intrinsically valuable enough to black individuals (and all other community members) as to sometimes take the rest of integration. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more