Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

5 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

today.  As should be obvious, there is nothing “pressing” or
“necessary” about obtaining whatever educational benefits 
may flow from racial diversity. 

II
 
A 

The University claims that the District Court found that
it  has  a  compelling  interest  in  attaining  “a  diverse  stu- 
dent body and the educational benefits flowing from such
diversity.”  Brief for Respondents 18.  The use of the con-
junction,  “and,”  implies  that  the  University  believes  its
discrimination furthers two distinct interests.  The first is 
an interest in attaining diversity for its own sake.  The sec-
ond  is  an  interest  in  attaining  educational  benefits  that
allegedly flow from diversity.

Attaining diversity for its own sake is a nonstarter.  As 
even Grutter recognized, the pursuit of diversity as an end
is  nothing  more  than  impermissible  “racial  balancing.” 
539  U.  S.,  at  329–330  (“The  Law  School’s  interest  is  not 
simply  ‘to  assure  within  its  student  body  some  specified 
percentage of a particular group merely because of its race
or  ethnic  origin.’  That  would  amount  to  outright  racial
balancing,  which  is  patently  unconstitutional”  (quoting 
Regents  of  Univ.  of  Cal.  v.  Bakke,  438  U. S.  265,  307 
(1978);  citation  omitted));  see  also  id.,  at  307  (“Preferring 
members of any one group for no reason other than race or 
ethnic  origin  is  discrimination  for  its  own  sake.    This  the 
Constitution  forbids”).  Rather,  diversity  can  only  be  the 
means by which the University obtains educational benefits; 
it  cannot  be  an  end  pursued  for  its  own  sake.    Therefore, 
the  educational  benefits  allegedly  produced  by  diversity 
must rise to the level of a compelling state interest in order 
for the program to survive strict scrutiny.

Unfortunately for the  University,  the educational bene-
fits  flowing  from  student  body  diversity—assuming  they
exist—hardly  qualify  as  a  compelling  state  interest.    In-