Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 124

18  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

the  lower  courts’  findings  recounted  above  about  how  the 
universities intentionally give tips to students of some races 
and not others.  See supra, at 8–12, 16–17.  Put to the side 
telling  evidence  that  came  out  in  discovery.8  Ignore,  too, 
our many precedents holding that it does not matter how a 
defendant “label[s]” its practices, Bostock, 590 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 14); that intentional discrimination between in-
dividuals  is  unlawful  whether  “motivated  by  a  wish  to 
achieve classwide equality” or any other purpose, id., at ___ 
(slip op., at 13); and that “the absence of a malevolent mo-
tive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a 
neutral policy with a [merely] discriminatory effect,” John-
son Controls, 499 U. S., at 199.  Consider just the dissents 
in these cases.  From start to finish and over the course of 
nearly 100 pages, they defend the universities’ purposeful 
discrimination between applicants based on race.  “[N]eu-
trality,” they insist, is not enough.  Post, at 12, 68 (opinion 
of SOTOMAYOR, J.); cf. post, at 21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). 
“[T]he use of race,” they stress, “is critical.”  Post, at 59–60 
(opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see id., at 2, 33, 39, 43–45; cf. 
post, at 2, 26 (opinion of JACKSON, J.).  Plainly, Harvard and 
UNC  choose  to  treat  some  students  worse  than  others  in 
part because of race.  To suggest otherwise—or to cling to 
the fact that the schools do not always say the quiet part 
aloud—is to deny reality.9 

—————— 

8 Messages among UNC admissions officers included statements such 
as  these:    “[P]erfect  2400  SAT  All  5  on  AP  one  B  in  11th  [grade].” 
“Brown?!”  “Heck  no.  Asian.”    “Of  course.    Still  impressive.”;  “If  it[’]s 
brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [schol-
arship].”;  “I  just  opened  a  brown  girl  who’s  an  810  [SAT].”;  “I’m  going 
through  this  trouble  because  this  is  a  bi-racial  (black/white)  male.”; 
“[S]tellar academics for a Native Amer[ican]/African Amer[ican] kid.”  3 
App. in No. 21–707, pp. 1242–1251.

9 Left with no reply on the statute or its application to the facts, the 
principal dissent suggests that it violates “principles of party presenta-
tion” and abandons “judicial restraint” even to look at the text of Title VI.