Last semester I was, shall we say, less than enchanted with the so-called "Diversity Calendar" produced by the UA Diversity Action Council. I outlined in this space why I found the work so ill-considered, not least because the DAC policy statement was a logical contradiction.

Time marches on, and this year the renamed Diversity Action Program has put out a new edition. In several ways it is a vast improvement, as it features photos of students learning in "nontraditional settings" (such as the KUAT studio and a lab with Alex, the amazing African gray parrot). Academics, after all, should be a university's primary mission, and the DAP deserves credit for stressing this.

But the mission statement is unchanged, still asserting that every individual characteristic should be valued (which must include racism, sexism, and closed-mindedness; hence, the contradiction). As I see it, the trouble is that the DAP has missed the central problem. I propose that the real issue of diversity is judgment; that is, how we assess, evaluate, and rate other people to make distinctions among them.

First, a few thoughts on judgment itself. Some will say that we have no right to make any distinctions at all, and on the most fundamental level this is true. On that level, we are all God's children and possess a basic human dignity; this comes out in equality before the law, for instance. But on more mundane levels, we can and do arrive at judgments, moral and otherwise.

Some questions that require judgments: (a) Is an action, impulse, or feeling morally OK or not? (b) Is someone qualified for a job or not? (c) Is someone competent at a task or not? (d) Do I like hanging out with this person or not? (e) Is Barbara Boxer an idiot or not? (Clearly, some judgments are easier to make than others.)

We can't avoid facing such questions; you do it every time you choose a roommate. (In fact, a responsible person will probably judge himself more often than he judges anyone else.) To my mind, developing good judgment is crucial to a successful and happy life.

But how does good judgment relate to diversity? How can we phrase opposition to racial discrimination, for instance, in terms of judgment? I think the answer is to specify certain characteristics to which judgment should be blind; to set clear standards blind to these characteristics whenever possible; and to insist that people be judged primarily as individuals and not as members of groups.

For instance, the "blind" list should certainly include race, color, and ethnicity. In decisions, assessments, and all other judgments, these three should simply not come up. Ideally, they should not affect the decision at all. (The only exception I can think of is theatrical casting, where race may need to match up. There may occasionally be others, but I don't think they invalidate the ideal.)

Of course, in practice, there will be problems. For example, if blacks are being shortchanged in K-12 education (which they are in some places), then a black job applicant may be less likely to write well than an Asian one. This is a cold hard fact that might well affect an employer's decision, and reasonably so. An immediate way out is to devise colorblind standards so as to judge people as individuals rather than randomly selected group members (give each applicant an essay to write). Above all, we should strive to be "blind" as a matter of principle.

There will be much to debate about all this. What exactly should the "blind" list include? I think the DAP's is far too long. It's OK, for instance, to be annoyed by "unique individual style" or to disapprove of certain "sexual orientations" (pedophilia comes to mind).

With other attributes it's harder to decide. It's clearly OK to have some standards based on "physical or mental ability" (the football and chess teams, respectively). But for "personal" judgments (whom to hang out with), should these categories be "blind"? Sex (not "gender") is even more problematic, as there are good reasons to exclude women from combat and men from one's dating scene, for instance. Should we distinguish between "non-personal" judgments (who gets into a college) and "personal" ones (whom to invite to your birthday party)? How important is it to have a diverse student body, and how much diversity is enough?

It's a large issue. But by understanding and teaching good judgment, we can avoid the contradiction of the "diversity is good" approach and bring diverse people together at the same time. I'd judge that to be pretty good.

John Keisling welcomes all rational public contributions to this and any other discussion. He is a math Ph.D. candidate whose column appears Wednesdays.

John Keisling