An acquaintance of mine was in Madison last summer. Since she was applying to medical schools at the time, she naturally paid a visit to the University of Wisconsin Department of Medicine for some information on admissions.

Once inside, she found a professor whose book she had read in a course and told the professor she was thinking of applying to UW Med. The professor, who had served on the admissions committee, asked her if she was a resident. She said no.

“It’s probably not worth applying then,” the professor responded. “If you’re only going for your M.D. [and not a joint degree], hardly anyone gets in out-of-state if they aren’t a minority.”

That was it. No talk about her grades … or her interests … or her experience. No talk about what this prospective med-school applicant had been through in her life, the challenges she had overcome. She was white. The color of her skin, not the content of her character, was sufficient evidence for rejection.

The controversy around race-based admissions is nothing new, and I am not opposed to looking at aspects of candidates’ lives and background in determining both their academic potential and the diversity they will add to the campus. But skin color alone is not enough — an assertion I call the Fresh Prince Principle.

Everyone remembers the relatively short-lived sitcom “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air,” starring Will Smith as a street-wise teen from West Philadelphia sent by his mother to live with relatives in Bel Air after a couple of guys who were up to no good started making trouble in his neighborhood. His cousin Carlton (Alfonso Ribeiro), also black, grew up swimming in wealth and high society.

Carlton had every advantage a kid could ask for growing up: two loving parents, a safe neighborhood, plenty of money, the best schools. Will had none. Both were black. But who will receive the most help from race-based admissions? Carlton, of course.

Carlton is what schools are looking for anyway. He’s not a risk — he’s clearly serious about his studies and would not struggle to fit in and succeed in college. The color of his skin just makes him even more attractive to admissions officers.

But he won’t add to the diversity of the school; his viewpoint wouldn’t be much different than any other rich kid from Bel Air. Thinking that he would add a lot to debates on socioeconomic or racial issues simply because of the hue of his skin is insulting to all those without European ancestry. Diverse viewpoints aren’t passed down in the same genetic material that determines skin tone; they are determined by life experience.

Will — or, for that matter, anyone growing up in his circumstances, white or black — would contribute much more. Unfortunately, Will usually gets no more help from a race-based admissions policy than any of his white neighbors in the inner city.

Universities want a diverse student body, but they don’t like to take big risks; admitting students who grew up in rough areas and went to high schools where safety was a bigger issue than education is too dicey for most committees.

And so the farce continues, and race-based admissions keeps on giving benefits to those who never really needed it in the first place. That is not to say race is a completely arbitrary characteristic for everyone (ask anyone who grew up in the ’50s, or anyone who has since lived in areas with major racial strife). But it is for the Carltons, for those who grow up both in affluence and in communities with generally enlightened attitudes about race.

Nor do race-based admissions fail all the time. There are several success stories at UW of people who grew up in the inner city, got admitted to college with the help of these admissions policies and are now succeeding academically. These people might be role models for younger people in their neighborhoods, who may see that someone can overcome a disadvantaged background to still get a strong education.

But these are the exceptions, not the rule, and while young people in the inner city might feel a connection with the Wills, they have no reason to see the Carltons as role models.

Race-based admissions were put in place with noble motives: the promotion of greater equality. At the time they were implemented, such a policy may have been necessary; blatantly racist attitudes were far more common. But now the inequality is shifting, and admissions officers will soon need to determine when the inequality caused by racist attitudes is overwhelmed by the inequality caused by a race-based admissions policy.

Perhaps a system emphasizing economics over race is the answer. Perhaps one emphasizing social environment, or family background, or high school quality.

To their credit, some schools do offer to take these factors into consideration if the applicant is willing to give evidence of them — perhaps a sign that times are changing. But admissions officers are both naive and patronizing if they think race alone can provide diversity or indicate a disadvantaged youth.

If both equality and diversity are the real goals, universities should sooner give preference to someone — white or black — born and raised on the playgrounds of West Philadelphia than someone from the hills of Bel Air who happened to be born with a darker shade of skin.