In this paper, I will consider Shelby Steele’s consequentialist argument against Affirmative Action, as presented in “Affirmative Action: The Price of Preference” and one problem that arises with his reasoning. I will argue that the problem that arises is due to his belief that people of color are inferior to white people and in doing so he neglects the superiority that people of color can bring from certain backgrounds. I will also claim that if this mistake is corrected, Steele’s argument can be immune to criticism commonly presented in response to it. Shelby Steele argues that Affirmative Action, if understood as a preferential treatment, makes those undesirable situations worse by provoking prejudice and self-doubt, rather than to make the problems less severe. Therefore, he opposes Affirmative Action. I find this claim plausible, for the following reasons: Affirmative Action reinforces inferiority, creates a conformity to victimization and an illusion of repayment of past mistakes.
Steele begins his discussion of Affirmative Action by stating that it qualifies black folks a preferential treatment that is implied as inferiority or a type of demoralization. Steele also implies white inferiority in terms of white people seeing it from an outside view. For instance, in the workforce or education system, white people that are not rich believe that if they have to compete for a job with an African American individual, that the African American will take his or her position simply because of their skin color. On the other hand, he says those who benefit, like an African American, will be inclined to suspect that Affirmative Action is what allowed them to get what they wanted, like attending college or a job position they currently have. This implies that Affirmative Action worsens prejudice that exists because it is an obstacle to the evolution of racial groups that have been historically disadvantaged. Thus, preferential treatment, he says, helps reward black folks for being underdogs rather than for moving forward beyond that status. This misplacement of motives combined with increased self-doubt is more of an oppression than an encouragement. Given this argument he further mentions that Affirmative Action policies are an embodiment of white people's attempts at reparation for their past discriminatory actions. Hence, it helps create an illusion that it is possible for the white people to compensate African American people for their notable suffering. In the first place the idea of historic reparation comes from a degree of making justice, but it is impossible to make justice to such a concern. Steele argues that suffering can be endured and overcome but it can't be repaid. Further support for his claim comes from the idea that blacks cannot be repaid for the past injustices done to their race, but he understands that blacks can be corrupted by society's guilty pleasures of repayment. Keeping in mind with the repayment to past mistakes he asked if every African-American person received a million dollars tomorrow morning, would that repay them of all injustices? The answer to this question is that it obviously it cannot fix the past injustices because its historical injustices has created crucial economic inequalities in the black community.
Therefore, Steele proposes that in order to make Affirmative Action great it has to benefit the black community. The only way that is possible is if its focus remains on social policies that will be committed to two goals: educational development of disadvantage people, regardless of their race, and the eradication from our society of racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination (471). He seeks that minorities have access to better elementary and secondary schools, job training, safer neighborhoods, and better financial assistance for college. He explains that preference will not benefit the black community because it will not attack one form of discrimination with another (471). He further concludes his discussion by mentioning once again that blacks will never attain real power without accepting the responsibility for their education and economic development. On the other hand, whites will never gain racial innocence without obtaining it by completely demolishing discrimination and helping the disadvantaged prosper. Steele lastly identifies that society keeps ignoring sanctions of racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination, which is the real reason the goals of affirmative action have not been met; there is work that remains to be done if society wants to accomplish overcoming discrimination and inequality.
However, one problem arises. First, Steele’s defines African American as inferior to whites simply because of their skin color. There is a flaw in his argument because as Bernard Boxill agrees, the African American have superiority due to their backgrounds. In more detail, “The Color-Blind Principle” article, Boxill defends Affirmative Action plans by arguing that there is no reason for selection plans to be strictly colorblind, that is for race to never to be a criterion of selection (458). His main claim is that the color-blind principle, which takes in consideration all color-conscious policies to be invalid, is wrong. He says that the color-blind principle that is meant to support equal rights for all people does not imply the absence of racism or discrimination. He further mentions that people can only be treated differently in ways that affects their lives on the basis of features they are responsible of. He explains that there is a problem with the responsibility criterion and that the problem is that talents are not chosen, nor are people responsible for having them, but society still accepts the distribution of jobs based on talents as fair. Therefore, he concludes the responsibility criterion is false. Boxill explains that talent, in some cases, is one’s racial identity that can be treated as a merit or talent depending on someone’s institutional goal. For example, my cousin, who is currently in medical school hopes to serve the Latino community and address the inequalities that exist in the healthcare system. Therefore, in her case, coming from a disadvantaged background has given her the advantage of understanding the challenges that the community faces because she has experienced those same challenges herself. Hence, I believe that in order to fix this issue Steele will need to readjust his explanation of inferiority by explaining that sometimes inferiority allows the less advantaged to outshine the white individual and to re-emphasize that the cons out weight the pros. If Steele explains other scenarios in which African Americans are negatively inferior to whites, the opposing view previously mention will be weakened. For instance, if a low-income African American and White are both studying to be lawyers in the same college and receive the same degree, are applying for the same position in an area where 50% are black and 50% are white. The white person will get hired. Then, it will weaken the argument because both men will be equally superior in terms of their backgrounds thus re-confirming that Steele’s argument is correct
As Steele’s consequentialist discussion of Affirmative Action suggest, it is plausible to say that Affirmative Action worsens the inequality in the black community because it generates self-doubt, a sense of victimization in the African-American community and creates the illusion of past repayment for white people. As I have argued, Steele can re-define the inferiority blacks experience to make his argument even clearer to opponents. Thus, Steele provides adequate reasons to belief his claim that Affirmative Action is bad because of its negative effects to the black community.