Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 170.0

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

31 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

81.   Under  SFFA’s  model,  however,  Black  representation 
would  plummet  by  about  32%,  and  the  admitted  share  of
applicants with high academic ratings would decrease, as
would the share with high extracurricular and athletic rat-
ings.  980  F. 3d,  at  194.  SFFA’s  proposal,  echoed  by
JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  ante,  at  14–15,  requires  Harvard  to 
“make sacrifices on almost every dimension important to its 
admissions  process,”  980  F. 3d,  at  194,  and  forces  it  “to 
choose between a diverse student body and a reputation for 
academic excellence,” Fisher II, 579 U. S., at 385.  Neither 
this Court’s precedents nor common sense impose that type
of burden on colleges and universities. 

The courts below also properly rejected SFFA’s argument
that  Harvard  does  not  use  race  in  the  limited  way  this
Court’s precedents allow.  The Court has explained that a
university  can  consider  a  student’s  race  in  its  admissions
process so long as that use is “contextual and does not op-
erate as a mechanical plus factor.”  Id., at 375.  The Court 
has also repeatedly held that race, when considered as one 
factor of many in the context of holistic review, “can make 
a  difference  to  whether  an  application  is  accepted  or  re-
jected.”  Ibid.  After all, race-conscious admissions seek to 
improve racial diversity.  Race cannot, however, be “‘deci-
sive’ for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented 
minority  applicant.”  Gratz,  539  U. S.,  at  272  (quoting 
Bakke, 438 U. S., at 317). 

That is precisely how Harvard’s program operates.  In re-
cent years, Harvard has received about 35,000 applications 
for a class with about 1,600 seats.  980 F. 3d, at 165.  The 
admissions  process  is  exceedingly  competitive;  it  involves
six different application components.  Those components in-
clude  interviews  with  alumni  and  admissions  officers,  as 
well as consideration of a whole range of information, such 
as  grades,  test  scores,  recommendation  letters,  and  per-
sonal essays, by several committees.  Id., at 165–166.  Con-
sistent  with  that  “individualized,  holistic  review  process,”