Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

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

39 

Opinion of the Court 

That is a remarkable view of the judicial role—remarka-
bly  wrong.  Lost  in  the  false  pretense  of  judicial  humility
that the dissent espouses is a claim to power so radical, so 
destructive,  that  it  required  a  Second  Founding  to  undo.
“Justice Harlan knew better,” one of the dissents decrees. 
Post, at 5 (opinion of JACKSON, J.).  Indeed he did: 

“[I]n  view  of  the  Constitution,  in  the  eye  of  the  law, 
there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling
class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitu-
tion is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates clas-
ses among citizens.”  Plessy, 163 U. S., at 559 (Harlan, 
J., dissenting). 

VI 

For  the  reasons  provided  above,  the  Harvard  and  UNC 
admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guaran-
tees  of  the  Equal  Protection  Clause.  Both  programs  lack
sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting 
the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative man-
ner,  involve  racial  stereotyping,  and  lack  meaningful  end
points.  We have never permitted admissions programs to
work in that way, and we will not do so today. 

At  the  same  time,  as  all  parties  agree,  nothing  in  this 
opinion  should  be  construed  as  prohibiting  universities
from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race af-
fected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspira-
tion, or otherwise.  See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 1725–
1726,  1741;  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  in  No.  20–1199,  at  10.    But, 
despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities 
may  not  simply  establish  through  application  essays  or 
other means the regime we hold unlawful today.  (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice
on how to comply with the majority opinion.)  “[W]hat can-
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly.  The Consti-
tution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibi-
tion against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing,