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

12  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
Opinion of the Court 

quently  recognized,  even  racial  distinctions  that  were  ar-
gued to have no palpable effect worked to subordinate the
afflicted students.  See, e.g., McLaurin v. Oklahoma State 
Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U. S. 637, 640–642 (1950) (“It 
is  said  that  the  separations  imposed  by  the  State  in  this
case are in form merely nominal. . . . But they signify that
the  State  . . .  sets  [petitioner]  apart  from  the  other  stu-
dents.”).  By  1950,  the  inevitable  truth  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment had thus begun to reemerge: Separate cannot 
be equal.

The culmination of this approach came finally in Brown 
v. Board of Education.  In that seminal decision, we over-
turned Plessy for good and set firmly on the path of invali-
dating  all  de jure  racial  discrimination  by  the  States  and 
Federal Government.  347 U. S., at 494–495.  Brown con-
cerned  the  permissibility  of  racial  segregation  in  public
schools.  The school district maintained that such segrega-
tion was lawful because the schools provided to black stu-
dents and white students were of roughly the same quality.
But we held such segregation impermissible “even though
the  physical  facilities  and  other  ‘tangible’  factors  may  be 
equal.”  Id., at 493 (emphasis added).  The mere act of sep-
arating “children . . . because of their race,” we explained,
itself “generate[d] a feeling of inferiority.”  Id., at 494. 

The conclusion reached by the Brown Court was thus un-
mistakably clear: the right to a public education “must be
made available to all on equal terms.”  Id., at 493.  As the 
plaintiffs had argued, “no State has any authority under the
equal-protection  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to 
use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities
among its citizens.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, O. T. 1952, 
No. 8, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952); see also Supp. 
Brief for Appellants on Reargument in Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and 
for Respondents in No. 10, in Brown v. Board of Education, 
O. T. 1953, p. 65 (“That the Constitution is color blind is our