Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

First, the interests they view as compelling cannot be sub-
jected to meaningful judicial review.  Harvard identifies the 
following educational benefits that it is pursuing: (1) “train-
ing future leaders in the public and private sectors”; (2) pre-
paring graduates to “adapt to an increasingly pluralistic so-
ciety”; (3) “better educating its students through diversity”; 
and (4) “producing new knowledge stemming from diverse 
outlooks.”  980  F. 3d,  at  173–174.    UNC  points  to  similar
benefits,  namely,  “(1) promoting  the  robust  exchange  of 
ideas;  (2)  broadening  and  refining  understanding;  (3) fos-
tering  innovation  and  problem-solving;  (4) preparing  en-
gaged  and  productive  citizens  and  leaders;  [and]  (5) en-
hancing  appreciation,  respect,  and  empathy,  cross-racial 
567 
understanding,  and  breaking  down  stereotypes.” 
F. Supp. 3d, at 656. 

Although these are commendable goals, they are not suf-
ficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny.  At the out-
set, it is unclear how courts are supposed to measure any of 
these goals.  How is a court to know whether leaders have 
been adequately “train[ed]”; whether the exchange of ideas
is “robust”; or whether “new knowledge” is being developed? 
Ibid.; 980 F. 3d, at 173–174.  Even if these goals could some-
how be measured, moreover, how is a court to know when 
they have been reached, and when the perilous remedy of
racial preferences may cease?  There is no particular point
at  which  there  exists  sufficient  “innovation  and  problem-
solving,”  or  students  who  are  appropriately  “engaged  and 
productive.”  567 F. Supp. 3d, at 656.  Finally, the question 
in this context is not one of no diversity or of some: it is a 
question  of  degree.  How  many  fewer  leaders  Harvard 
would  create  without  racial  preferences,  or  how  much 
poorer the education at Harvard would be, are inquiries no
court could resolve. 

Comparing  respondents’  asserted  goals  to  interests  we
have recognized as compelling further illustrates their elu-
sive nature.  In the context of racial violence in a prison, for