Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 121.0

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

15 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

disadvantaged  applicants  just  half  of  the  tip  it  gives  re-
cruited athletes; and (2) eliminated tips for the children of
donors, alumni, and faculty.  Brief for Petitioner 33–34, 81; 
see  2  App.  in  No.  20–1199,  at  763–765,  774–775.    Doing 
these two things would barely affect the academic creden-
tials of each incoming class.  Brief for Petitioner 33–34.  And 
it would not require Harvard to end tips for recruited ath-
letes, who as a group are much weaker academically than 
non-athletes.5 

At  trial,  however,  Harvard  resisted  this  proposal.    Its 
preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty
are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ 
good  fortune  or  trips  to  the  alumni  tent  all  their  lives. 
While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences un-
doubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most. 
See 980 F. 3d, at 171.  Still, Harvard stands by them.  See 
Brief for Respondent in No. 20–1199, at 52–54; Tr. of Oral
Arg. in No. 21–1199, at 48–49.  As a result, athletes and the 
children  of  donors,  alumni,  and  faculty—groups  that  to-
gether “make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard”—
constitute  “around  30%  of  the  applicants  admitted  each
year.”  980 F. 3d, at 171. 

To  be  sure,  the  parties’  debates  raise  some  hard-to-an-
swer questions.  Just how many admissions decisions turn 
on race?  And what really motivates the universities’ race-
conscious  admissions  policies  and  their  refusal  to  modify 
other preferential practices?  Fortunately, Title VI does not 
require an answer to any of these questions.  It does not ask 

—————— 

5 See Brief for Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies as Ami-
cus Curiae 11 (recruited athletes make up less than 1% of Harvard’s ap-
plicant pool but represent more than 10% of the admitted class); P. Arci-
diacono,  J.  Kinsler,  &  T.  Ransom,  Legacy  and  Athlete  Preferences  at 
Harvard, 40 J. Lab. Econ. 133, 141, n. 17 (2021) (recruited athletes were
the  only  applicants  admitted  with  the  lowest  possible  academic  rating
and 79% of recruited athletes with the next lowest rating were admitted
compared to 0.02% of other applicants with the same rating).