Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 78

30  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

at 23, 43, 67 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.) (noting that UNC’s
black admissions percentages “do not reflect the diversity
of  the  State”;  equating  the  diversity  interest  under  the
Court’s precedents with a goal of “integration in higher ed-
ucation” more broadly; and warning of “the dangerous con-
sequences of an America where its leadership does not re-
flect  the  diversity  of  the  People”);  post,  at  23  (opinion  of 
JACKSON,  J.)  (explaining  that  diversity  programs  close 
wealth gaps).  But language—particularly the language of 
controlling opinions of this Court—is not so elastic.  See J. 
Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power 23 (L. Krauth 
transl. 1992) (explaining that propaganda, “in contradiction
to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but 
to  manipulate”  and  becomes  an  “[i]nstrument  of  power”
(emphasis deleted)).

The  Court  refuses  to  engage  in  this  lexicographic  drift, 
seeing  these  arguments  for  what  they  are:  a  remedial  ra-
tionale in disguise.  See ante, at 34–35.  As the Court points
out, the interest for which respondents advocate has been
presented to and rejected by this Court many times before. 
In  Regents  of  University  of  California  v.  Bakke,  438  U. S. 
265 (1978), the University of California made clear its ra-
tionale for the quota system it had established: It wished to 
“counteract effects of generations of pervasive discrimina-
tion” against certain minority groups.  Brief for Petitioner, 
O. T. 1977, No. 76–811, p. 2.  But, the Court rejected this 
distinctly remedial rationale, with Justice Powell adopting
in its place the familiar “diversity” interest that appeared 
later  in  Grutter.  See  Bakke,  438  U. S.,  at  306  (plurality 
opinion).  The Court similarly did not adopt the broad re-
medial  rationale  in  Grutter;  and  it  rejects  it  again  today.
Newly and often minted theories cannot be said to be com-
manded by our precedents.

Indeed, our precedents have repeatedly and soundly dis-
tinguished between programs designed to compensate vic-