This is a really good point, one I hadn't throught about. What if the name creates a bias because it conjures up an image that is nothing like the person - while their picture "undoes" that.
Not saying I necessarily believe that happens, but I really appreciate the logic of your point/question.
While it's worth pointing out the limits of our knowledge, I wonder why you appear to think it's just as likely that the photo will eliminate the racial bias? If studies have shown that a black-sounding name means fewer jobs, I would think the default hypothesis, until proven otherwise, would be that a black photo would result in the same ends.
Thinking that it might as well go the other way seems to imply that there's just something weird about names, and that people don't really have racial biases. But this charitable view of the world has been shown false time and again.
In any case, a version of the study with live people, instead of photos, has also been done, and, not surprisingly, shown the same result:
> Other studies have also examined race and employment. In a 2009 study, Devah Pager, Bruce Western and Bart Bonikowski, all now sociologists at Harvard, sent actual people to apply for low-wage jobs. They were given identical résumés and similar interview training. Their sobering finding was that African-American applicants with no criminal record were offered jobs at a rate as low as white applicants who had criminal records.
Not saying I necessarily believe that happens, but I really appreciate the logic of your point/question.