Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 120.0

14  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

p. 756.3 

Even beyond all this, the parties debate the availability
of  alternatives.  SFFA  contends  that  both  Harvard  and 
UNC  could  obtain  significant  racial  diversity  without  re-
sorting  to  race-based  admissions  practices.  Many  other
universities  across  the  country,  SFFA  points  out,  have
sought  to  do  just  that  by  reducing  legacy  preferences,  in-
creasing financial aid, and the like.  Brief for Petitioner 85– 
86; see also Brief for Oklahoma et al. as Amici Curiae 9– 
19.4  As part of its affirmative case, SFFA also submitted
evidence  that  Harvard  could  nearly  replicate  the  current
racial composition of its student body without resorting to
race-based  practices  if  it:  (1)  provided  socioeconomically 

—————— 

3 See also E. Bazelon, Why Is Affirmative Action in Peril? One Man’s 
Decision, N. Y. Times Magazine, Feb. 15, 2023, p. 41 (“In the Ivy League, 
children whose parents are in the top 1 percent of the income distribution
are 77 times as likely to attend as those whose parents are in the bottom 
20 percent of the income bracket.”); ibid. (“[A] common critique . . . is that 
schools have made a bargain with economic elites of all races, with the
exception of Asian Americans, who are underrepresented compared with 
their level of academic achievement.”). 

4 The principal dissent chides me for “reach[ing] beyond the factfinding 
below” by acknowledging SFFA’s argument that other universities have
employed  various  race-neutral  tools.    Post,  at  29–30,  n. 25  (opinion  of 
SOTOMAYOR, J.).  Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, however, I do not 
purport to find facts about those practices; all I do here is recount what 
SFFA has argued every step of the way.  See, e.g., Brief for Petitioner 55, 
66–67; 1 App. in No. 20–1199, pp. 415–416, 440; 2 App. in No. 21–707, 
pp. 551–552.  Nor, of course, is it somehow remarkable to acknowledge 
the parties’ arguments.  The principal dissent itself recites SFFA’s argu-
ments  about  Harvard’s  and  other  universities’  practices  too.  See,  e.g., 
post, at 30–31, 50 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.).  In truth, it is the dissent 
that reaches beyond the factfinding below when it argues from studies
recited in a dissenting opinion in a different case decided almost a decade 
ago.  Post,  at 29–30,  n. 25  (opinion  of  SOTOMAYOR, J.);  see  also  post,  at 
18–21 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.) (further venturing beyond the trial rec-
ords  to  discuss  data  about  employment,  income,  wealth,  home  owner-
ship, and healthcare).