Integration In Thomas Nagel's The Imperative Of Integration

Imperative of integration

This essay will begin by briefly describing the main points of The Imperative of Integration, followed by an analysis of the arguments she lays out for the justness of affirmative action in conversation with Thomas Nagel’s argument in his paper “Equal Treatment and Compensatory Discrimination”.

In The Imperative of Integration, Elizabeth Anderson argues that segregation is the root cause of social inequality. In order to obtain justice, then, integration should be a policy imperative. She argues against the abandonment of integrative policies, as has happened with Brown v. Board of Education effectively ceasing to be enforced, leading to greater levels of segregation, higher even than what existed before Brown.

Firstly, by keeping the discussion of principles centred on how people are, not how we wish them to be—in other words, keeping in mind human nature as is. Secondly, by avoiding gaps between ideals and reality—an analysis through the lens of ideal theory tells us that we tend to perceive any gap between the real world and the ideal as a problem. One needs only to look at issues such as the French state’s constitutional laicité and consequent difficulty in tailoring policies regarding the use of Muslim head-coverings in schools, for example. Thirdly, ideal theory may allow for obfuscation of certain features of real people, which might not be accounted for in ideal theory settings. For example, when we think of class injustice, such as the disparity between the middle class and the poorer Americans, without accounting for race as a factor in the creation of inequality of opportunities, one can’t properly understand why the ratio of poor Afro-Americans is greater than that of

As an example, we could take the racially grounded belief in the inferior intellect of African-Americans to justify not hiring them for more professionally demanding positions.

Anderson finds that segregation is the cornerstone of inequality between different groups. Simply put, it is a mechanism through which one group bars another from accessing both the first group’s monopoly of a good and how it is distributed—take the example of the type of roles that African-Americans were historically able fill in the armed forces, where they were often relegated to non-frontline roles. They were therefore unable to choose where they served, and could not accrue both the rewards and social status that went with frontline duty.

Anderson goes on to speak about the relational character of her argument. According to her, it can be summarized as the type of norms that influence how one group interacts with another, and how a group’s interests are affected by such interactions. Therefore, inequality in how a good is distributed can be unjust if the unfairness arises from unequal relations, or if it causes such