Segregation as Exclusion
We do not often think of segregation as a modern word, instead choosing to see it as something squared away in history books. Yet, segregation persists in our public schools, and many American children experience it to an even greater degree than our counterparts in the sixties and seventies.[1] While many continue to push for change, some have questioned whether or not integration was ever a worthy pursuit. Perhaps our efforts are futile, and the solution for a more just society is elsewhere. In this article, I examine where we went wrong in the integration battle. I argue that we fundamentally misunderstand the goal of integration because we have fundamentally misunderstood why segregation is wrong. I examine both the legal history of segregation and draw on Elizabeth Anderson’s social theory about what she calls “the imperative of integration.”[2] Ultimately, I will argue that integration is integral to a just society, and we have underapreciated its significance in our legal system.
De facto segregation has taken a back seat to de jure segregation in too many court rooms. De jure segregation is separation that results from legislative mandates and de facto segregation is any form of segregation that does not. In reality the distinction is somewhat irrelevant and has more often been abused as an excuse not to integrate than as a legitimate legal argument.[3] There need not be any law in place for the existence of separate educational facilities for black and white children to be unconstitutional.
No one has articulated the issue more famously than Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”[4] Yet, what we have misunderstood about this decision is the meaning of “inherently.” He argued that state sanctioned separation of the races sends the message to children of color that they are inferior. This inferiority complex undoubtedly impacts their motivation and quality of education, and as such they are denied the same education as white children. While I agree with the argument, the reasoning behind it is incomplete. Yes, the legal stamp on segregation, or de jure segregation, can have damaging impacts, but this might suggest that if the legislation is removed, the quality of education while still separate, will be equal. We understand today that this is not the case. The real damage is the fact that the children are kept away from the opportunity to connect with and learn to exist in the same world as their fellow citizens. Because of the legacy of Brown v. Board’s interpretation, lawyers must constantly prove de jure segregation, and in some cases such as Parent’s Involved (2007) and Milliken v. Bradley (1974) the reluctance to find de facto segregation unconstitutional and in need of remedy poses a threat to justice.
Some argue that this is a dramatic notion. In his response to Anderson, Tommie Shelby questions the necessity of integration for justice. He argues that integration is not so much an imperative of justice as it is “justice-promoting,” and the natural, or de facto, segregation that exists need not be remedied by “artificially engineer[ed] multicultural neighborhoods” that have no meaningful effect on society.[5] He suggests that we ought not focus on integration so much as on the other forms of discrimination and inequality that create the injustices we see today. Sheryll Cashin also notes in her book, The Failures of Integration, that black people are not so worried about socializing with whites as they are with “having the same access to the good things in life as everyone else.”[6] Both authors, although they disagree about the imperative of integration, point to the skepticism of black communities about the merits of modern integration efforts because too often the burden falls on people of color to upend their lifestyles for the sake of a societal good.
Still, I agree with Anderson. She argues that integration remains an imperative of justice, despite the discomfort it has and may continue to cause both blacks and whites. Our democracy depends on it. It is an injustice to educate children separately because it puts society on track to create two different Americas. The White America, while separate, will maintain the generational wealth and power it has always had while the Black America will continue to suffer from exclusion from these monetary and human resources. It also creates two Americas under one democratic system, and because one group already dominates so much of the mainstream political realm, keeping another group separate from that from a young age constitutes the exclusion of part of America from the democratic system.[7] For this reason, solution like New York Mayor DeBlasio’s plan to fund black schools rather than to integrate them are not likely to change much.[8]
Frankly, I wish we had started this age-old debate using a better word for segregation. The word that best describes this practice is exclusion. To borrow Warren’s logic, separation of educational facilities in America based on race is inherently exclusive. When I say segregation, I do not solely refer to the fact of separation, as I might imply that white people make classrooms better because of their somehow invaluable whiteness. This ridiculous notion turns black communities off to the idea of integration and severely cripples well-intentioned integration efforts in workplaces, housing, and schools.
However, when we redefine segregation as exclusion, we can better understand and judge integrative efforts as inclusive solutions, not merely populating places with different races. School is not only a place where children learn the Pythagorean Theorem and the structure of a good essay, but it is also their first engagement in the democratic process. This means that black children learn how to navigate the “white world,” and their white counterparts grow up learning to respect and listen to people who don’t look like them or their parents. Our history has disadvantaged people of color, and to allow us to continue to live in a state of separation from the democratic and economic processes that run our nation would only further the injustices.
As such it is wrong for our legal system to only consider and remedy de jure segregation because the de facto segregation that often persists beyond legislative bounds is an unconstitutional form of exclusion to which it ought not turn a blind-eye. As long as we continue to look at segregation as an issue of the separation of the races and not an issue of exclusion of certain Americans from their very own democracy and economy, we will continue to falter in our integration efforts.
References
[1] Cashin, Sheryll. “The Failures of Integration.” Center for American Progress, 25 Sept. 2006
[2] Anderson, Elizabeth. The Imperative of Integration. Course Book ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
[3] Rothstein, Richard. “Modern Segregation.” Economic Policy Institute, 6 Mar. 2014, www.epi.org/publication/modern-segregation/.
[4] Warren, Earl, and Supreme Court of The United States. U.S. Reports: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. 1953. Periodical.
[5] SHELBY, TOMMIE. "Integration, Inequality, and Imperatives of Justice: A Review Essay." Philosophy & Public Affairs 42, no. 3 (2014): 253-85.
[6] Cashin, Sheryll. “The Failures of Integration.” Center for American Progress, 25 Sept. 2006
[7] Anderson, Elizabeth. The Imperative of Integration. Course Book ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
[8] Shapiro, Eliza. “Segregation Has Been the Story of New York City's Schools for 50 Years.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 26, 2019.