Abstract
The city of Yonkers violated the Constitution by locating schools and public housing in ways that were prosegregative. Did the city's plan ners act unethically, using the Davi doff-Krumholz categorical imperative of redistribution as the ethical stan dard ? Possibly yes, but I argue that the imperative is an irrelevant stan dard for a city's planners and con clude that Yonkers' planners acted ethically. The imperative is valuable as a personal moral reference point and is appropriate for judging the actions of elected and appointed of ficials. It is inappropriate, however, as a standard for evaluating public servants. Yonkers' planners provided best practice advice to political deci sion makers. They were ignored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
