Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 73.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

25 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

have  more  diverse  outlooks  on  this  metric  than  two  stu-
dents from Manhattan’s Upper East Side attending its most
elite  schools,  one  of  whom  is  white  and  other  of  whom  is 
black.  If Harvard cannot even explain the link between ra-
cial diversity and education, then surely its interest in ra-
cial diversity cannot be compelling enough to overcome the 
constitutional limits on race consciousness. 

UNC fares no better.  It asserts, for example, an interest 
in training students to “live together in a diverse society.”
Brief for University Respondents in No. 21–707, p. 39.  This 
may well be important to a university experience, but it is 
a social goal, not an educational one.  See Grutter, 539 U. S., 
at 347–348 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in 
part) (criticizing similar rationales as divorced from educa-
tional goals).  And, again, UNC offers no reason why seek-
ing a diverse society would not be equally supported by ad-
individuals  with  diverse  perspectives  and 
mitting 
backgrounds, rather than varying skin pigmentation. 
  Nor have amici pointed to any concrete and quantifiable 
educational benefits of racial diversity.  The United States 
focuses on alleged civic benefits, including “increasing tol-
erance  and  decreasing  racial  prejudice.”    Brief  for  United 
States as Amicus Curiae 21–22.  Yet, when it comes to edu-
cational  benefits,  the  Government  offers  only  one  study
purportedly showing that “college diversity experiences are 
significantly  and  positively  related  to  cognitive  develop-
ment”  and  that  “interpersonal  interactions  with  racial  di-
versity are the most strongly related to cognitive develop-
ment.”  N.  Bowman,  College  Diversity  Experiences  and 
Cognitive  Development:  A  Meta-Analysis,  80  Rev.  Educ. 
Research 4, 20 (2010).  Here again, the link is, at best, ten-
uous, unspecific, and stereotypical.  Other amici assert that 
diversity (generally) fosters the even-more nebulous values 
of “creativity” and “innovation,” particularly in graduates’ 
future workplaces.  See, e.g., Brief for Major American Busi-