Multiculturalism has become a political touchstone in many countries around the world. While many of those on the right oppose it, and many of those on the left embrace it, things are not this simple. For those who defend them, multicultural policies are generally seen as key to the fair and successful integration of minorities, many of whom are immigrants, into diverse democratic societies. For those who oppose multiculturalism, who have become part of the so-called "backlash" against multiculturalism, they are charged with generating segregation rather than inclusion, undermining national cultures, reinforcing difference, and privileging minority groups. Around the world, we see failing attempts at migrant integration, persistent religious intolerance and racial and ethnic discrimination, resurgent national minorities, emboldened majorities, permanent minorities, continuing social isolation, and increasing extremism, including in the form of white nationalism. But is multiculturalism the solution to these problems or does it just make them worse? In this for-and-against book, two prominent scholars of multiculturalism put forward different answers to this important question. While Patti Tamara Lenard argues for minority rights as both the consequence of a right to culture and a way to redress the effects of nation-building, Peter Balint rejects minority rights altogether, instead arguing for a re-imagined liberal neutrality. This theoretical disagreement plays out in real-world policy disagreement. Lenard, for example, argues strongly in favor of exemptions from general rules for minority cultures including the right of Sikhs to be exempt from helmet laws, and for Jews and Muslims to be exempt from bans on male circumcision. She also defends the right of minority cultures to have government-supported separate spaces. Balint, on the other hand, argues directly against these types of exemptions and government support. He is opposed to any form of differentiation based on culture, religion, or ethnicity. The book uses a wide range of real-world examples to demonstrate their significant theoretical disagreement, and to recommend very different policy proposals.

Multiculturalism has become a political touchstone in many countries around the world. While many of those on the right oppose it, and many of those on the left embrace it, things are not this simple. For those who defend them, multicultural policies are generally seen as key to the fair and successful integration of minorities, many of whom are immigrants, into diverse democratic societies. For those who oppose multiculturalism, who have become part of the so-called "backlash" against multiculturalism, they are charged with generating segregation rather than inclusion, undermining national cultures, reinforcing difference, and privileging minority groups. Around the world, we see failing attempts at migrant integration, persistent religious intolerance and racial and ethnic discrimination, resurgent national minorities, emboldened majorities, permanent minorities, continuing social isolation, and increasing extremism, including in the form of white nationalism. But is multiculturalism the solution to these problems or does it just make them worse? In this for-and-against book, two prominent scholars of multiculturalism put forward different answers to this important question. While Patti Tamara Lenard argues for minority rights as both the consequence of a right to culture and a way to redress the effects of nation-building, Peter Balint rejects minority rights altogether, instead arguing for a re-imagined liberal neutrality. This theoretical disagreement plays out in real-world policy disagreement. Lenard, for example, argues strongly in favor of exemptions from general rules for minority cultures including the right of Sikhs to be exempt from helmet laws, and for Jews and Muslims to be exempt from bans on male circumcision. She also defends the right of minority cultures to have government-supported separate spaces. Balint, on the other hand, argues directly against these types of exemptions and government support. He is opposed to any form of differentiation based on culture, religion, or ethnicity. The book uses a wide range of real-world examples to demonstrate their significant theoretical disagreement, and to recommend very different policy proposals.

As people become more mobile around the world, the nature of citizenship, and all its attendant rights, has become the object of intense scrutiny. And, as we know, democracies forcefully and coercively exclude those whom they believe do not belong on their territory or among their constituency. In Democracy and Exclusion, Patti Tamara Lenard looks at how and when democracies exclude both citizens and noncitizens from territory and from membership to determine if and when there are instances when such exclusion is justified. To make her case, Lenard draws on the all-subjected principle, or the idea that all those who are the subject of law—that is, those who are required to abide by the law and who are subject to coercion if they do not do so voluntarily—should have a say in what the law is. If we assess who is subjected to the power of a state at any particular moment, and especially over time, we can see who ought to be treated as a member and therefore be granted citizenship or the right to stay. With an in-depth look at instances in which democratic states have expanded or adopted policies that permit the exclusion of citizens—including denationalization, stateless peoples, labor migrants, returning foreign fighters, and LGBTQ+ refugee resettlement—Lenard argues that admission to territory and membership is either favored by, or required by, democratic justice. Democracy and Exclusion makes a powerful case that subjection to the power of a state, without proper protection from exclusion, is a violation of democratic principle.

Explores the moral dilemmas posed by disparities in health across nations Contributors to this volume considers whether health inequalities are a result of global distributive inequalities and are therefore of concern to those promoting global redistributive justice.Case studies include The migration of health care practitioners from developing to developed nations The impact of climate change The social determinants of health outcomes The effects of pharmaceutical legislation--and international bad practices more generally--on securing access to life-saving drugs in the developing world The differential effect of these practices on men and women, especially with respect to HIV/AIDS These cases are explored alongside theoretical questions of definition, responsibility and moral relevance to discover the scope of responsibilities that developed nations have towards poor health in developing nations.

Banning minarets by referendum in Switzerland, publicly burning Korans in the United States, prohibiting kirpans in public spaces in Canada--these are all examples of the rising backlash against diversity that is spreading across multicultural societies. Trust has always been precarious, and never more so than as a result of increased immigration. The number of religions, races, ethnicities, and cultures living together in democratic communities and governed by shared political institutions is rising. The failure to construct public policy to cope with this diversity--to ensure that trust can withstand the pressure that diversity can pose--is a failure of democracy. The threat to trust originates in the perception that the values and norms that should underpin a public culture are no longer truly shared. Therefore, societies must focus on building trust through a revitalized public culture. In Trust, Democracy, and Multicultural Challenges, Patti Tamara Lenard plots a course for this revitalization. She argues that trust is at the center of effective democratic politics, that increasing ethnocultural diversity as a result of immigration may generate distrust, and therefore that democratic communities must work to generate the conditions under which trust between newcomers and "native" citizens can be built, so that the quality of democracy is sustained.

Explores the moral dilemmas posed by disparities in health across nations
Contributors to this volume considers whether health inequalities are a result of global distributive inequalities and are therefore of concern to those promoting global redistributive justice.
Case studies include
The migration of health care practitioners from developing to developed nations
The impact of climate change
The social determinants of health outcomes
The effects of pharmaceutical legislation--and international bad practices more generally--on securing access to life-saving drugs in the developing world
The differential effect of these practices on men and women, especially with respect to HIV/AIDS
These cases are explored alongside theoretical questions of definition, responsibility and moral relevance to discover the scope of responsibilities that developed nations have towards poor health in developing nations.