1

Boxill and Affirmative Action(sdw2565)

Affirmative action, a term that can be traced back to President Kennedy, who in a 1961

Executive Order mandates that projects take affirmative action in establishing that hiring

practices are free of racial bias, is now more commonly associated, amidst high profile court

cases, with colleges and universities using race as a factor in their admissions processes. This

shift in the discussion came with many critics of affirmative action policies in which race was

allowed to be used as a factor in admission, claiming that a candidate for admission shouldn’t be

advantaged in virtue of their race. Others, however, like Boxill, propose that race is a fair

consideration in being hired for a job, or admitted to a school. Boxill’s assertion that the counter

to color-conscious policies, the color blind principle, though initially attractive, is inherently

flawed, and following from its flaws that color conscious policies are acceptable and/or favorable

under certain conditions, succeeds. The best objection to color conscious policies, degradation of

equal opportunity, fails to invalidate his claim.

The acceptance of some color conscious policies and therefore of affirmative action, is

inherently opposed to the color blind principle. The color blind principle, as outlined by Boxill in

his paper states that it is wrong to treat people differently based on their race in any situation,

namely under the law, in which laws and policies cannot be made to attempt that end. Those who

advocate the truth of the color blind principle, and importance of its use in law, support it with

two main arguments. The first of those being that a noble societal aim would be to eliminate

judgements based on race, which wouldn’t occur if race was taken out of consideration or if

people were “blind” to it. This first argument falls short in its implication that pushing for color
 2

blindness in society would lead to a better, less discriminatory society. To consider methods in

which societal change will occur, it is important to define the state of society. It can be largely

agreed upon that there still exists some form of racial discrimination lingering in society, if not

institutional, then due to past institutional racism or other subconscious or personal forms of

racism. To deal with the issue of the effects of past institutional racism and subconscious forms

of racism, it seems central that they should be acknowledged first. To “not see” color is to lose

responsibility or acknowledgment of its effects in society and therefore to lose the chance to

attempt change. Advocates of color blind policies avoid confrontation with the fact that racism

has impacted the lives of the candidates they are judging. Taking race out of consideration is not

helping to eliminate racism it is turning a blind eye to it and denying a hand in understanding

racisms effects, or attempting change. The color blind principle in law is not setting a noble or

anti-discriminatory precedent, but an indifferent one.

The color blind principle is also supported by a second main argument, that it is wrong to

impose a penalty on someone for an aspect of themselves that they have no control over.

Advocates propose that it would be unfair to give different opportunities to people based on

factors they cannot change. This argument can seem immediately appealing according to Boxill,

as it superficially seems to explain what is so apparently negative and harmful about

discriminating against blacks with policies like Jim Crow Laws, someone could not help that

they were born a certain race, so there shouldn’t be negative discrimination in law because of it.

The second main argument however rests on what Boxill calls the responsibility criterion, which

suggests that people can only be treated differently, in major aspects of their life like work and

educational opportunities, based on things that they are responsible for. In order for the argument
 3

for color blindness to hold up, that it is wrong to impose a penalty on someone for what they

cannot control, the responsibility criterion must be adopted, to not be judged on what you can’t

control is to be judged for what you can. As selective admission requires some sort of judgement,

to take out judgment based on factors that the applicant cannot control is to place judgement only

on the factors that were in the applicants control.

Boxill successfully rejects the validity of the responsibility criterion using a situation that

had been discussed by Ronald Dworkin, in which there are two candidates for a job in surgery

and both have equal qualifications for fulfilling the position in the way of success in school, ect.,

but they differ in that one of the doctors has less steady hands than the other, a clear hindrance in

success in surgery, but nonetheless, a quality that one cannot control. To keep patients safe and

maintain the integrity of his workplace the employer must clearly choose the surgeon with more

steady hands, but in doing this he discriminates based on a factor that the applicants cannot

control. This clearly represents a pitfall of the responsibility criterion, there are legitimate

reasons why you may be discriminated against for things that you have no control over,

specifically in the job market. Getting hired for a job represents your ability to perform a service,

if not well then at least to a certain standard, and the ways in which you did or did not come to be

able perform that job, whether it was through personal work or talents procured at birth, is not

relevant to receiving the job.

By extension Boxill’s argument is supported, and color blind policies are invalidated,

discrimination based on things you are not responsible for, with the caveat that it is working

towards a better end, like higher performance or better service at a job, is acceptable. Therefore

using race as a factor in admissions, in the interest of working towards a better end, is just. Just
 4

like high test scores on a job relevant test, which were earned through genetic predispositions for

good test-taking skills and intelligence, may be a factor in employment, race, a factor that you

cannot control, may make a candidate more suited for a job or college. A racial minority may

lend diversity and a new perspective to a work or school environment or be more suited to work

with minority patrons, making those patrons more comfortable at the establishment, and

therefore the candidate may be more suited to improve service.

Boxill rounds out his support for color conscious policies by addressing the principle of

justice, which speaks on not only how good is increased in society, but how that good is then

distributed to different members of society. He explains that the principles of justice involve

goods being distributed equally for those who are similar in the relevant aspect of justice, like

rights, while those who are not similar in these relevant aspects get unequal amounts of the good.

Following from that, policies are unjust if they unequally distribute goods to a group with no

relevant aspect that entitles them to receive more goods. This qualifies his claim in the context of

hiring for a job, like doctor or lawyer, that being black may serve as a factor to be considered

because it produces a greater good, in that black clients or patients may be served better by him,

and that that good can be given “based on principles of justice.” This explains why immoral

racial discrimination, like that in Jim Crow laws, is wrong, it doesn’t follow the principles of

justice in that it doesn’t allow goods to be fairly distributed. The claims that these examples of

negative racial discrimination are wrong because people cannot control their race, the argument

for color-blind policies and the responsibility criterion, is proven false, many factors that we do

not choose may be judged for qualification for something, including intelligence, but the inherent

wrong of negative racial discrimination lies in it being unjust, or not allowing a good to be
 5

distributed fairly. Race is not a relevant factor to enjoying the perks of some common goods, like

a park or water fountain, so if it is considered and then distributed unequally, then it would be

unjust, and therefore morally wrong. Boxill succeeds in explaining the difference between

negative discrimination and discrimination, failing to be recognized by the color blind principle,

that one is unjust and the other adheres to the principles of justice.

Further, affirmative action policies are often called out for degrading the equality of

opportunity in college admissions, limiting some students opportunity to be accepted and

increasing others based on their race. This claim is invalid in that it assumes that equality of

opportunity is absolute in college admissions. Firstly, college admissions rely on many factors,

like test scores signifying intelligence, that aren’t equal. People are born with certain natural

limitations on their intelligence, and not everyone, even if they study long and hard, will make a

perfect SAT score. A lazy student with better SAT scores may be accepted into a better college

than a hard-working one, even though they were unequal from the start. While it might be

brought up that intelligence is more applicable to college admissions than is race, and so

discrimination based on intelligence is of a different category, a Washington Post article cites a

study in which more than 80% of variance in college success can be attributed to factors other

than test scores. While everyone accepts that colleges may discriminate based on test scores, it is

a factor which only plays a minor role in college success, showing that the college admissions

process is not in the business of providing equality of opportunity. Standing on the false notion

of equality of opportunity in college admissions to eliminate race as a factor that can be

considered disregards the nuance that may arise when reviewing candidates from different racial

backgrounds with similar qualifications on all other fronts. One candidate may be more suited to
 6

make the campus environment more diverse or may have been faced with obstacles that made

their path to the application that much more difficult.

To conclude, Boxill’s argument succeeds in disqualifying the validity of color-blind

principles and by extension color blind policies and promoting color conscious ones. Color blind

principles serve as a false, distracting reason for the moral corruption in racial discrimination,

and their justification, being right because of the unfairness of disadvantaging someone for

something they can’t control, is flawed in its logic. Color conscious policies have the ability to

have a positive impact on society in their capacity to advantage students to serve their

communities better and provide their unique experience to universities. The problem of loss of

equality of opportunity is invalid in that equality of opportunity in school admissions is not

absolute. Oftentimes loss of the bigger picture is missed in this debate, race being used as a

factor in admissions, as long as there is no quota system, is just that simply a factor, its benefits

and morality should be thought about before dismissing it wholly.

Works Cited

“Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity and Diversity.” Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity

and Diversity, web.uri.edu/affirmativeaction/affirmative-action-history/.

Boxill, Bernard R., and Bernard R. Boxill. “The Color-Blind Principle.” Blacks and Social

Justice, Rowman & Littlefield, 1992, pp. 9–18.

Wingfield, Adia Harvey. “If You Don't See Race, How Can You See Racial Inequality?” The

Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 15 Sept. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/

2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/.

Strauss, Valerie. “A Basic Flaw in the Argument against Affirmative Action.” The Washington

Post, WP Company, 17 July 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/17/

a-basic-flaw-in-the-argument-against-affirmative-action/?noredirect=on&utm_term.

2b61e0c32edf.