COVID has transformed city life. We see each other differently; many of us, for a while at least, didn’t see each other at all. We meet each other in different places. We’ve discovered or invented whole new classes of heroes and essential workers. Housing prices are up (along with the prices for everything else), access to mortgages has tightened, and we are only just recovering from a steep increase in unemployment. A rise in labour militancy has followed suit, from the (...) Starbucks and Amazon unionization drives to the RMT strike. The general state of agitation kindled the reaction to the murder of George Floyd, the anti-crime backlash, and public protests of lockdowns and vaccination policy. We’ve taken to the streets in other, less overtly political ways; in New York City, where I live, the Open Streets program and changing regulations have allowed pedestrians and restaurant-goers to seize space previously reserved for cars. And of course, the ongoing public health crisis, which has played out very differently in different economic strata, has brought us nose to nose with the failures of our basic institutions. -/- What should we do with these changes? Which should we maintain or accelerate, and which should we roll back? If cities have failed to rise to the challenges of COVID, how can they succeed in the future? (shrink)

D. C. Matthew argues that although integration offers blacks social and economic benefits, it also creates the conditions for phenotypic devaluation that leads to harm against black self-worth and servile behavior. Therefore, he advises against integration because the resulting self-worth harms outweigh the benefits of integration. I argue that Matthew’s cost-benefit calculation against integration lacks the requisite evidence, and amounts to a luxury belief that will result in more harm. Moreover, his interpretation of behavior — which he construes as being (...) indicative of a lack of self-worth — is unfounded. Further, his cost-benefit calculation results in socially reactionary sexual policing and ideological purity tests. (shrink)

In this chapter I consider the place of the topic of racial and ethnic urban residential segregation factors into political philosophy. I begin with a short history of residential segregation and the ghetto, and their role in systems of racial domination and oppression, and remarks on the general neglect of this topic in contemporary political philosophy, including in nonideal political philosophy, which proports to take on examples of real-world injustices and inequalities. I then examine, from the standpoint of liberal-egalitarian political (...) theory, what segregation, as a concept, entails, and its harms to individuals, communities, and societies. Segregation in all its forms (residential, educational, and employment, as well as in political and legal systems) is an instance of injustice and inequality and a major component of processes that maintain injustice and inequality, so it requires correction and rectification of some sort. Desegregation and integration are typically forwarded as solutions to the ills and injustices of segregation. They seem synonymous, but are they? To answer this question, I survey the prominent conceptualizations of both during the civil rights movement and the contemporary debate over those terms and political theoretical positions. In the conclusion I outline my partial defense of the idea of integration. (shrink)