“Diversity” Or Racial Balance?

The Ninth Circuit is considering, again, Seattle’s use of what it euphemistically refers to as a “racial tiebreak” in assigning students to the city’s high schools. (Link via Howard Bashman)

The school district argued that use of racial tiebreakers is necessary to ensure diversity in its five most popular schools.

But it’s hard to see from the linked article about the case anything in the assignment policy that deals with breaking ties of any kind. The city’s interest appears to be straightforward racial balancing.

Introduced in the 1970s and now on hold because of litigation, the racial tiebreaker was used when a school had more applicants than available seats, and the school’s proportion of white and non-white students deviated 15 percent from the districtwide average.

Members of minorities had a better chance of getting into predominantly white schools, and whites were more likely to be placed in largely non-white schools.

Four of Seattle’s 10 public high schools are considered racially unbalanced compared with the district as a whole.

….

… At Ballard High, the so-called “whitest school,” minorities accounted for about 37 percent of the school population, he said.

However, district figures show that 45 percent of Ballard High’s ninth- and 10th-graders were minority students in 2001, when the tiebreaker was still in effect. The figure dropped to 37 percent by the fall of last year and was estimated at 35 percent this fall.

Conversely, the percentage of ninth- and 10th-grade minority students at Franklin High jumped from 77 percent in 2001 to 86 percent last year and a projected 87 percent this fall.

“Critical mass” anyone? If Ballard High is already 37% minority, in what sense does giving minorities a racial preference to attend there increase the “diversity” at the school?

It does if “diversity” itself is simply a euphemism for racial balance, which appears to be the case in Seattle. And elsewhere.