It is who you know that counts: Intergroup contact and judgments about race‐based exclusion

Intergroup contact and evaluations about race‐based exclusion were assessed for majority and minority students in grades 4, 7 and 10 (N = 685). Scenarios depicting cross‐race relations in contexts of dyadic friendship, parental discomfort and peer group disapproval were described to participants. Participants reporting higher levels of intergroup contact gave higher ratings of wrongfulness of exclusion and lower frequency estimations of race‐based exclusion than did participants reporting lower levels of such contact. Intergroup contact also predicted students' attributions of motives in two out of the three scenarios. Findings are discussed in terms of the extant literature on peer relations, moral reasoning and intergroup contact.     

Global Public Reason,Diversity, and Consent

Abstract

In this paper, I examine global public reason as a method of justifying a global state. Ultimately, I conclude that global public reason fails to justify a global state. This is the case, because global public reason faces an unwinnable dilemma. The global public reason theorist must endorse either a hypothetical theory of consent or an actual theory of consent; if she endorses a theory of hypothetical consent, then she fails to justify her principles; and if she endorses a theory of actual consent, her theory will lead to a highly unstable political system. On either side of the dilemma, global public reason faces untenable implications. Although similar criticisms have been advanced against domestic public reason, my argument is not repeating points made before me. My argument is new, in that it raises these objections specifically against global public reason, and in that it shows how, due to increased diversity of belief in the global arena, these problems are more pressing for global public reason than they are for domestic public reason.