Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

24  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
Opinion of the Court 

example, courts can ask whether temporary racial segrega-
tion  of  inmates  will  prevent  harm  to  those  in  the  prison.
See Johnson, 543 U. S., at 512–513.  When it comes to work-
place discrimination, courts can ask whether a race-based 
benefit  makes  members  of  the  discriminated  class  “whole 
for  [the]  injuries  [they]  suffered.”  Franks  v.  Bowman 
Transp. Co., 424 U. S. 747, 763 (1976) (internal quotation
marks omitted).  And in school segregation cases, courts can
determine  whether  any  race-based  remedial  action  pro-
duces  a  distribution  of  students  “compar[able]  to  what  it 
would have been in the absence of such constitutional vio-
lations.”  Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 420 
(1977).

Nothing like that is possible when it comes to evaluating 
the  interests  respondents  assert  here.    Unlike  discerning
whether a prisoner will be injured or whether an employee 
should receive backpay, the question whether a particular
mix of minority students produces “engaged and productive
citizens,” sufficiently “enhance[s] appreciation, respect, and
empathy,”  or  effectively  “train[s]  future  leaders”  is  stand-
ardless.  567 F. Supp. 3d, at 656; 980 F. 3d, at 173–174.  The 
interests that respondents seek, though plainly worthy, are 
inescapably imponderable.

Second, respondents’ admissions programs fail to articu-
late a meaningful connection between the means they em-
ploy and the goals they pursue.  To achieve the educational 
benefits of diversity, UNC works to avoid the underrepre-
sentation of minority groups, 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 591–592,
and  n. 7,  while  Harvard  likewise  “guard[s ]  against  inad-
vertent  drop-offs  in  representation”  of  certain  minority
groups from year to year, Brief for Respondent in No. 20–
1199, at 16.  To accomplish both of those goals, in turn, the
universities measure the racial composition of their classes
using the following categories: (1) Asian; (2) Native Hawai-
ian or Pacific Islander; (3) Hispanic; (4) White; (5) African-
  See,  e.g.,  397 
American;  and  (6) Native  American.