Jacques Steinberg has on article, “Using Synonyms for Race, College Strives for Diversity,” in the Education section of the New York Times tomorrow that provides a close look at how Rice, a very selective university, is managing its voluntary transition from race-conscious affirmative action to a continuing search for diversity with race just beneath the surface. The experience at Rice, Steinberg writes, provides a preview of how life would in the admissions offices at other selective universities if race preferences were barred. Those changes would be more subtle, he suggests, than dramatic.
Almost overnight, the admissions officers at Rice stopped saying aloud the words “black,” “African-American,” “Latino,” “Hispanic” or even “minority” in their deliberations…. But like other colleges, Rice says it remains fiercely committed to having a diverse student body, so in the years since, it has developed creative, even sly ways to meet that goal…
“You can no longer say to the committee, ‘This is a great African-American from New York,'” said Julie M. Browning, the dean for undergraduate enrollment at Rice. “You have to drop a lot of language associated with affirmative action.”
Instead, Ms. Browning said, the admissions team at Rice has developed a whole new vocabulary
I keep toying with the idea that this kind of thing may be a reasonably good outcome. What’s really troubling about affirmative action is the open, blatant nature of the racial preferences. If you abolish affirmative action but let this kind of thing continue with some degree of concealment, race joins all sorts of other little facts about a person that give advantages in some contexts and disadvantages in others. Barring more dramatic improvements in human nature than seem likely in the short term, that may be a pretty good outcome.
I’m not convinced this is right, but I’m not convinced it’s wrong, either.