![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper argues that self‐respect constitutes an important value, and further, an important basis for equality. It also argues that under conditions of inequality‐producing segregation, voluntary separation in schooling may be more likely to provide the resources necessary for self‐respect. A prima facie case of voluntary separation for stigmatized minorities when equality – as equal status and treatment – is not an option under either the terms of integration or involuntary segregation is defended.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bill New, Charles Howell, Anders Schinkel, Lucas Swaine, and also to Elizabeth Anderson for generously sending me an early copy of her book manuscript.
Notes
1. Contact across difference during periods of political stability is rarely substantive, even in so‐called mixed settings (Anderson Citation2007, Blokland and van Eijk Citation2010, Bonilla‐Silva Citation2003, Moody Citation2001).
2. For example, darker‐skinned persons will not be stigmatized equally or in the same way. Much depends on the context, immigration history, demographic concentration, social class, religion, tribal affiliation, etc. In some societies, many of these variables converge to multiply the harms stigma brings, while in others the opposite occurs.
3. Like liberty and autonomy, ‘voluntariness’ is exercised relative to various contextual constraints, including the very shaping of one’s preferences by external circumstances.
4. I am sensitive to the fact that group membership and individual well‐being/self‐respect are closely connected. Nevertheless, my argument is primarily focused on the needs of the individual.
5. However, I agree with Blum (Citation2002) that it would be a mistake to assume that racial segregation only concerns that which occurs between whites and non‐whites.
6. Such a system would include formal prohibitions against discrimination. Political philosophers have dubbed this approach the ‘natural aristocracy’, but the possession of these talents is also undeserved. Hence, egalitarians also debate among themselves the extent to which talents and efforts are morally relevant.
7. Thus, while equality is an important societal value, it is certainly not the only value, nor will it always be the most important value, and when two or more values conflict we will need to have good reasons for ranking priorities.
8. I put aside disagreements among egalitarians.
9. Though Rawls concerns himself more with the social bases of self‐respect rather than the attitude itself, there is no doubt that the fundamental worth of persons is a central feature to justice as fairness.
10. Integrationist aspirations continue to resonate particularly in Western societies, where centuries of ignominious colonization and de jure segregation have pervasive lingering effects.
11. This is a consistent finding among studies in the Netherlands where weighted student funding is the norm (Bolt and van Kempen Citation2010, Ladd and Fiske Citation2009, Musterd and Ostendorf Citation2009).
12. The unfortunate wording in the famous Brown decision (1954) was that segregated schools were ‘inherently unequal’.
13. Educational policy in liberal democracies is already geared toward thresholds of sufficiency (or adequacy), even if assessed crudely in terms of test scores. It is therefore unclear how Anderson’s argument, as stated, moves us beyond standard appeals for educational equality.
14. Also see Anderson (Citation2010), in which she develops her argument further but with the same underlying message, namely, that integration is necessary in order to ‘overcome unjust racial inequality in opportunities, undo racial stigmatization, and realize a fully democratic society of equal citizens’ (p. 237). Anderson also assumes that better‐placed minorities will be more responsive to constituents with whom they share similar traits. It seems intuitively correct that members of more ‘diverse’ backgrounds will be sensitive to the needs and concerns of constituents who share their cultural or ethnic background, but it is far from obvious that it will have that result.
15. For Du Bois, sympathetic teachers, knowledge of self and a quest for Truth were to be valued over simply mixing schools.
16. It is certainly not effortless for everyone. For example, gay and lesbian students – also victims of stigma – also may seek shelter away from the stresses of hetero‐norms, and like ethnic and racial minorities also can be overwhelmed with the pressure to ‘be normal’. Yet unlike most gay and lesbian students, the visible differences of most ethnic and racial minorities are inassimilable.
17. But see Valls (Citation2002) for an argument for voluntary separation even under ideal conditions given the way in which schools that address the needs of one group generally do a better job protecting and reproducing the culture, history and experience of stigmatized minority groups.
18. And many schools receive considerable additional resources to compensate for poverty effects.
19. It should also be remembered that voluntary separation has less to do with public versus private status and more to do with its organizational features. Further, whether there is a per‐pupil figure below which it is impossible to provide a child with a quality education is unsettled. Evidence suggests that the problem with per‐pupil spending is with how inefficiently it is used and not what the amount is in absolute terms. See, inter alia, Hill (Citation2008).
20. By ‘reasonable’ I mean efforts that involve the knowledgeable and willing consent of those affected, and also efforts that do not place the burden of desegregation on those least advantaged. This would describe certain voluntary desegregation schemes.