Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 229

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

21 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

holistic  process;  it  is  evidence  that,  both  in  theory  and  in
practice, UNC recognizes that race—like any other aspect
of a person—may bear on where both John and James start 
the admissions relay, but will not fully determine whether
either eventually crosses the finish line. 

III 
A 
The  majority  seems  to  think  that  race  blindness  solves 
the problem of race-based disadvantage.  But the irony is
that requiring colleges to ignore the initial race-linked op-
portunity gap between applicants like John and James will
inevitably widen that gap, not narrow it.  It will delay the 
day  that  every  American  has  an  equal  opportunity  to
thrive, regardless of race. 

SFFA  similarly  asks  us  to  consider  how  much  longer
UNC  will  be  able  to  justify  considering  race  in  its  admis-
sions process.  Whatever the answer to that question was 
yesterday, today’s decision will undoubtedly extend the du-
ration of our country’s need for such race consciousness, be-
cause  the  justification  for  admissions  programs  that  ac-
count for race is inseparable from the race-linked gaps in
health, wealth, and well-being that still exist in our society 
(the closure of which today’s decision will forestall). 

To be sure, while the gaps are stubborn and pernicious, 
Black people, and other minorities, have generally been do-
ing better.95  But those improvements have only been made
possible because institutions like UNC have been willing to 
grapple  forthrightly  with  the  burdens  of  history.    SFFA’s 
complaint  about  the  “indefinite”  use  of  race-conscious  ad-
missions  programs,  then,  is  a  non  sequitur.    These  pro-
grams respond to deep-rooted, objectively measurable prob-
lems; their definite end will be when we succeed, together, 
in solving those problems. 

—————— 

95 See Bollinger & Stone 86, 103.