Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 95

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

47 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

come to believe—accurately or not—that their race was re-
sponsible for their failure to attain a life-long dream.  These 
individuals, and others who wished for their success, may 
resent members of what they perceive to be favored races, 
believing  that  the  successes  of  those  individuals  are  un-
earned. 

What,  then,  would  be  the  endpoint  of  these  affirmative
action policies?  Not racial harmony, integration, or equal-
ity under the law.  Rather, these policies appear to be lead-
ing  to  a  world  in  which  everyone  is  defined  by  their  skin
color, demanding ever-increasing entitlements and prefer-
ences on that basis.  Not only is that exactly the kind of fac-
tionalism  that  the  Constitution  was  meant  to  safeguard
against, see The Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison), but it is a
factionalism based on ever-shifting sands. 

That is because race is a social construct;  we may each
identify as members of particular races for any number of 
reasons, having to do with our skin color, our heritage, or
our cultural identity.  And, over time, these ephemeral, so-
cially constructed categories have often shifted.  For exam-
ple, whereas universities today would group all white ap-
plicants together, white elites previously sought to exclude 
Jews and other white immigrant groups from higher edu-
cation.  In fact, it is impossible to look at an individual and 
know definitively his or her race; some who would consider
themselves black, for example, may be quite fair skinned.
Yet, university admissions policies ask individuals to iden-
tify themselves as belonging to one of only a few reduction-
ist racial groups.  With boxes for only “black,” “white,” “His-
panic,” “Asian,” or the ambiguous “other,” how is a Middle 
Eastern person to choose?  Someone from the Philippines?
See  post,  at  5–7  (GORSUCH,  J.,  concurring).   Whichever 
choice he makes (in the event he chooses to report a race at
all), the form silos him into an artificial category.  Worse, it 
sends a clear signal that the category matters.

But,  under  our  Constitution,  race  is  irrelevant,  as  the