Steele's Speech Was Disappointing

I attended the forum sponsored by the Program on Constitutional Government and the Institute of Politics on February 16, 1994. The speaker was "conservative" African-American English scholar Shelby Steele.

I was disappointed and appalled by the vaudevellian proceedings--beginning with Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield's factually inaccurate narrative on African-American intellectual debate in the introductory phases of the program. For the record, I would like to point out that Booker T. Washington did not debate Frederick Douglas in Atlanta, for Douglas had died earlier in that year (1885).

This historical fumble was merely an intellectual hors d'oeuvres. The real meat of the evening came with the presentation of Steele's theories. The crux of the argument was that: 1) White Americans live with perpetual guilt about their history as oppressors during the Antebellum period; 2) African-Americans exploit these latent feelings by claiming that white oppression is the primary social factor in explaining their lack of development; 3) Taken together points one and two lead to the development of policies of preference (affirmative action); 4) The keys to increased development for African-Americans are increased educational commitment and an honest assessment of capabilities from white Americans.

These arguments have substantial room for improvement. It is difficult to believe that the majority of white Americans have latent guilt feelings about their past collective experience as oppressors. As a political scientist, I find it very difficult to accept social theories based on attitudes that are not accompanied by at least some minimal survey of the population of interest. Thus, if he wants to continue to make such claims, he must role up his sleeves and get out in the field.

The second component of his theory does have minimal import. I agree that there may be some instance where African-Americans have over-emphasized racism. I also agree with his argument that African-Americans share some of the burden for their present conditions. However, to suggest that race is no longer the primary or even crucial variable in the analysis is ludicrous. Given this history, the burden of proof rests on Steel's shoulders. His argument that African-Americans exaggerate racism for increased social benefits will only hold up if he can demonstrate that the cases of exaggerate racism numerically approach legitimate cases of discrimination.

His argument about policies of preference for African-Americans is too simplistic. If this interplay of guilt and exaggeration does lead to preferential policies, then why is that so-called "affirmative action" limited to only a small percentage of the African-American population? Is Steele maintaining that only white elites suffer from this latent guilt and only African-American are masters of over-emphasis for political and economic gains? If this political culture truly exists and is as easy to exploit as he claimed, why haven't the masses of African-Americans struggling to survive mobilized to take advantage of this culture?

The fourth point was his biggest problem. He claimed that African-American progress depended on increased educational commitment. There is no disputing the fact that African-Americans like all groups would benefit from increased educational attainment. However, to assert that the lack of education is due to some deficiency in commitment is ridiculous. I would like to remind Professor Steele that many African-Americans in the "Crucible of oppression" died for trying to educate themselves. Furthermore, the establishment of 117 African-American colleges and universities in the Reconstruction period, as well as the struggle to gain access to universities such as Harvard, present a clear history of this commitment.

The most perverse part of his speech was his claim that African-Americans needed an honest assessment of their capabilities from white Americans. It was baffling to hear an advocate of self-help doctrine offer a paternalistic relationship with whites as a crucial variable in development. Moreover, how can whites who are plagued by latent guilt break that cycle and offer African-Americans and honest assessment of their capabilities? Furthermore, the history of race relations in American society demonstrates how whites, when given the chance to assess the collective capabilities of this group, have rarely provided "an honest account." The most important document in the history of this nation assessed the capabilities of African-Americans as being three-fifths that of a normal human being.

In closing, I contend that Steele's speech was void of any new or interesting social thought. He obviously failed to recognize the contradictions in his work and in himself. After reading his work and hearing his lecture, I would argue that perhaps Steele himself is an "affirmative action baby," to borrow a phrase from Steven Carter. I find it hard to believe that an English scholar who has been an open critic of affirmative action would have the audacity to present some opaque social theories to the Harvard community. I think that if steele is to continue advocating that African-Americans be "held accountable" by whites, then he must be careful not to exclude himself from such scrutiny. He must ask himself if it is the merit of his theories or the fact that he is an African-American Ph.D. who supports a certain political agenda that guarantees his invitation to speaking engagements around the country. Furthermore, I would suggest that if he continues to posit such theories, he should pursue a more rigorous presentation and defense of his work. Alvin Bernard Tilery, Jr.

Ph.D. candidate, Government