Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 122

16  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

how much a recipient of federal funds discriminates.  It does 
not scrutinize a recipient’s reasons or motives for discrimi-
nating.  Instead, the law prohibits covered institutions from 
intentionally treating any individual worse even in part be-
cause  of  race.  So  yes,  of  course, the  universities  consider 
many non-racial factors in their admissions processes too. 
And perhaps they mean well when they favor certain can-
didates  over  others  based  on  the  color  of  their  skin.    But 
even if all that is true, their conduct violates Title VI just
the same.  See Part I–A, supra; see also Bostock, 590 U. S., 
at ___, ___–___ (slip op., at 6, 12–15). 

D 
The principal dissent contends that this understanding of
Title VI is contrary to precedent.  Post, at 26–27, n. 21 (opin-
ion  of  SOTOMAYOR, J.).    But  the  dissent  does  not  dispute 
that  everything  said  here  about  the  meaning  of  Title  VI
tracks this Court’s precedent in Bostock interpreting mate-
rially identical language in Title VII.  That raises two ques-
tions:  Do the dissenters think Bostock wrongly decided?  Or 
do they read the same words in neighboring provisions of 
the  same  statute—enacted  at  the  same  time  by  the  same
Congress—to mean different things?  Apparently, the fed-
eral government takes the latter view.  The Solicitor Gen-
eral insists that there is “ambiguity in the term ‘discrimi-
nation’ ”  in  Title  VI  but  no  ambiguity  in  the  term 
“discriminate” in Title VII.  Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 21–707, 
at 164.  Respectfully, I do not see it.  The words of the Civil 
Rights  Act  of  1964  are  not  like  mood  rings;  they  do  not 
change their message from one moment to the next.

Rather than engage with the statutory text or our prece-
dent in Bostock, the principal dissent seeks to sow confusion 
about  the  facts.    It  insists  that  all  applicants  to  Harvard 
and UNC are “eligible” to receive a race-based tip.  Post, at 
32,  n. 27  (opinion  of  SOTOMAYOR,  J.);  cf.  post,  at  17 
(JACKSON, J., dissenting).  But the question in these cases