Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

interest  in  securing  diversity’s  benefits,  although  a  per-
missible  objective,  is  complex.  “It  is  not  an  interest  in 
simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of
the  student  body  is  in  effect  guaranteed  to  be  members 
of  selected  ethnic  groups,  with  the  remaining  percentage 
an undifferentiated aggregation of students.  The diversity
that  furthers  a  compelling  state  interest  encompasses  a 
far  broader  array  of  qualifications  and  characteristics  of
which  racial  or  ethnic  origin  is  but  a  single  though  im-
portant  element.”  Bakke,  438  U. S.,  at  315  (separate 
opinion).

In  Gratz,  539  U. S.  244,  and  Grutter,  supra,  the  Court 

endorsed  the  precepts  stated  by  Justice  Powell.    In  Grut­
ter, the Court reaffirmed his conclusion that obtaining the
educational benefits of “student body diversity is a compel-
ling  state  interest  that  can  justify  the  use  of  race  in  uni-
versity admissions.”  Id., at 325. 

As  Gratz  and  Grutter  observed,  however,  this  follows 
only  if  a  clear  precondition  is  met:  The  particular  admis-
sions  process  used  for  this  objective  is  subject  to  judicial 
review.  Race may not be considered unless the admissions
process can withstand strict scrutiny.  “Nothing in Justice 
Powell’s  opinion  in  Bakke  signaled  that  a  university  may 
employ  whatever  means  it  desires  to  achieve  the  stated 
goal  of  diversity  without  regard  to  the  limits  imposed  by
our strict scrutiny analysis.”  Gratz, supra, at 275.  “To be 
narrowly  tailored,  a  race-conscious  admissions  program 
cannot use a quota system,” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 334, but 
instead must “remain flexible enough to ensure that each 
applicant  is  evaluated  as  an  individual  and  not  in  a  way 
that  makes  an  applicant’s  race  or  ethnicity  the  defining 
feature of his or her application,” id., at 337.  Strict scru-
tiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that 
its “purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible
and  substantial,  and  that  its  use  of  the  classification  is 
necessary  . . .  to  the  accomplishment  of  its  purpose.”