Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 230

22  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
JACKSON, J., dissenting 

  Accordingly, while there are many perversities of today’s 
judgment, the majority’s failure to recognize that programs 
like UNC’s carry with them the seeds of their own destruc-
tion is surely one of them.  The ultimate goal of recognizing 
James’s full story and (potentially) admitting him to UNC 
is to give him the necessary tools to contribute to closing the 
equity gaps discussed in Part I, supra, so that he and his 
progeny—and therefore all Americans—can compete with-
out  race  mattering  in  the  future.    That  intergenerational 
project is undeniably a worthy one. 
  In  addition,  and  notably,  that  end  is  not  fully  achieved 
just  because  James  is  admitted.    Schools  properly  care 
about  preventing  racial  isolation  on  campus  because  re-
search shows that it matters for students’ ability to learn 
and succeed while in college if they live and work with at 
least some other people who look like them and are likely 
to have similar experiences related to that shared charac-
teristic.96    Equally  critical,  UNC’s  program  ensures  that 
students  who  don’t  share  the  same  stories  (like  John  and 
James)  will  interact  in  classes  and  on  campus,  and  will 
thereby  come  to  understand  each  other’s  stories,  which 
amici  tell  us  improves  cognitive  abilities  and  critical- 
thinking skills, reduces prejudice, and better prepares stu-
dents for postgraduate life.97 
  Beyond campus, the diversity that UNC pursues for the 
betterment of its students and society is not a trendy slo-
gan.  It saves lives.  For marginalized communities in North 
Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area 
institutions produce highly educated professionals of color.  
Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to ac-
curately  assess  Black  patients’  pain  tolerance  and  treat 

—————— 

96

 See,  e.g.,  Brief  for  University  of  Michigan  as  Amicus  Curiae  6,  24; 
Brief for President and Chancellors of University of California as Amici 
Curiae  20–29;  Brief  for  American  Psychological  Association  et al.  as 
Amici Curiae 14–16, 21–23 (APA Brief ). 

97

 Id., at 14–20, 23–27.