Wesson Lecture explores our democratic responsibilities to the unhoused

On May 21st 2026, the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society convened distinguished speakers on housing and homelessness for the annual Wesson Lecture on Problems of Democracy—a forum to cultivate moral reflection on our civic responsibilities within a democratic society.  

The night started with an ethical provocation to both speakers and audience: that the highly technical and policy-wonky world of urban governance, housing economics, and homelessness service provision is as much promising as it is the problem itself. Each layer of bureaucratic complexity -- a zoning decision, an obscure public process, or poorly understood electoral formality —  represents a layer of abstraction that can obfuscate the role of housed people in maintaining the deprivation of those without stable housing. 

It is otherwise very difficult to explain the persistence of socioeconomic segregation, stubbornly high rents, or why declarations of decisive action against homelessness by politicians are met with increasing cynicism. 

Everyday citizens often act as communities to preserve neighborhood character, high property values, or school system exclusivity, at the expense of allowing new people to join in on the prosperity. Paradoxically, acts of “democracy” can lead to forms of undemocratic exclusion.  

Exclusion was thus a central theme of the night. 

The first speaker, Michael Lens, grounded the discussion with a presentation of policy mechanisms such as zoning –land use restrictions that regulate how and where housing is built. As Professor of Urban Planning and policy at UCLA, Lens’ research focuses on the nexus of public policy and housing market inequities that result in negative outcomes for low income families and communities of color. 

He underscored “homelessness as a housing problem,” both as a title of a pivotal study by Gregg Colburn and Clayton Aldern, and the assertion of the systemic nature of housing inaccessibility and homelessness. The underlying policy mechanisms include zoning – land use restrictions that regulate how and where housing is built – among many other policy tenets that directly result in housing shortages, especially in high demand places.

Lens paid particular attention to California, where housing instability and homelessness sores compared to the rest of the country, despite its unparalleled prosperity. 

Margot Kushel, Professor of Medicine at UCSF, and coauthor of a widely-cited and representative exploration on homelessness in California, followed with a presentation on the lived realities of those experiencing homelessness. 

Kushel showed how vulnerable groups navigate broken support systems or fall through cracks. She compared scarce housing to a game of “musical chairs” a metaphor in Colbern and Aldern’s book: if the availability of homes were dwindling like seats in a game of musical chairs, then why pathologize the losers of the game by blaming a health condition, or a personal moral failing? 

Kushel’s research demonstrates intimate understanding of the lifestyles and decisions made by people experiencing homelessness. It dispels popular narratives which assume drug abuse or mental health disorders as primary causes of homelessness, when in reality, many fall into cycles of drug abuse or psychosis after becoming homeless. 

Carolina Reid of UC Berkeley’s Terner Center Center for Housing Innovation then presented an additional layer, arguing that policy responses have followed two dominant, yet inadequate logics: scarcity and criminalization. 

The scarcity logic bogs our housing and homelessness response systems down with “waitlists, eligibility screens, complex documentation requirements, all designed to restrict access to help rather than provide it.” Criminalization logics promote tent sweeps meant to punish or deter people for simply sleeping outside.  

But Reid ended on a hopeful note, citing proven strategies that integrate housing together with healthcare systems. Permanent supportive housing with wrap around services acknowledges that individuals cannot be durably treated for their vulnerabilities without stable housing first. While the strategy has been targeted by groups who fixate on anti-homelessness enforcement, there is promise in not only the proof of its efficacy, but the fact that permanent supportive housing construction is on the rise, especially in California.

Michelle Wilde Anderson Law Professor at Stanford, who specializes in disparities in housing and public services across groups, served as the discussant and regrounded the night in democratic principles. She closed acknowledging that the intricacies of local democracy have indeed been weaponized to block much needed housing, but encouraged everyone to think through the full implications of threatening local autonomy in other realms such as gun control and the construction of data centers. Obstructive power is neither inherently good or bad. 

Ultimately, weaving concern for housing and homelessness with deep questions of democracy can be “harder terrain”. But by the end of this discussion, no one should feel it is impassible.

The full lecture can be viewed on our Youtube Channel @ethicsinsociety: The Democratic Imperative to End Homelessness | Wesson Lecture 2025-26