Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 223.0

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

15 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

that UNC “enforced its own Jim Crow regulations.”73  Two 
generations  ago,  North  Carolina’s  Governor  still  railed
against  “ ‘integration  for  integration’s  sake’ ”—and  UNC 
Black enrollment was minuscule.74  So, at bare minimum, 
one generation ago, James’s family was six generations be-
hind because of their race, making John’s six generations
ahead. 

These stories are not every student’s story.  But they are 
many  students’  stories.  To  demand  that  colleges  ignore
race  in  today’s  admissions  practices—and  thus  disregard 
the fact that racial disparities may have mattered for where 
some applicants find themselves today—is not only an af-
front  to  the  dignity  of  those  students  for  whom  race  mat-
ters.75  It also condemns our society to never escape the past
that explains how and why race matters to the very concept 
of who “merits” admission. 
  Permitting  (not  requiring)  colleges  like  UNC  to  assess 
merit  fully,  without  blinders  on,  plainly  advances  (not
thwarts) the Fourteenth Amendment’s core promise.  UNC 
considers race as one of many factors in order to best assess 
the entire unique import of John’s and James’s individual 
lives and inheritances on an equal basis.  Doing so involves
acknowledging (not ignoring) the seven generations’ worth 
of historical privileges and disadvantages that each of these
applicants  was  born  with  when  his  own  life’s  journey
started a mere 18 years ago. 

Recognizing all this, UNC has developed a holistic review 
process  to  evaluate  applicants  for  admission.    Students 

II 

—————— 

73 3 App. 1683. 
74 Id., at 1687–1688. 
75 See O. James, Valuing Identity, 102 Minn. L. Rev. 127, 162 (2017); 
P. Karlan & D. Levinson, Why Voting Is Different, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1201, 
1217 (1996).