Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 174.0

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

35 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

is forced to reconstruct the record and conduct its own fac-
tual analysis.  It thus relies on a single chart from SFFA’s
brief that truncates relevant data in the record.  Compare 
ibid. (citing Brief for Petitioner in No. 20–1199, p. 23) with 
4 App. in No. 20–1199, p. 1770.  That chart cannot displace
the careful factfinding by the District Court, which the First
Circuit upheld on appeal under clear error review.  See Har-
vard II, 980 F. 3d, at 180–182, 188–189. 

In  any  event,  the  chart  is  misleading  and  ignores  “the
broader context” of the underlying data that it purports to
summarize.  Id.,  at  188.    As  the  First  Circuit  concluded, 
what  the  data  actually  show  is  that  admissions  have  in-
creased for all racial minorities, including Asian American
students,  whose  admissions  numbers  have  “increased 
roughly  five-fold  since  1980  and  roughly  two-fold  since 
1990.”  Id., at 180, 188.  The data also show that the racial 
shares of admitted applicants fluctuate more than the cor-
responding racial shares of total applicants, which is “the
opposite  of  what  one  would  expect  if  Harvard  imposed  a 
quota.”  Id., at 188.  Even looking at the Court’s truncated
period  for  the  classes  of  2009  to  2018,  “the  same  pattern 
holds.”  Ibid.  The fact that Harvard’s racial shares of ad-
mitted applicants “varies relatively little in absolute terms 
for [those classes] is unsurprising and reflects the fact that
the  racial  makeup  of  Harvard’s  applicant  pool  also  varies
very little over this period.”  Id., at 188–189.  Thus, properly 
understood,  the  data  show  that  Harvard  “does  not  utilize 
quotas  and  does  not  engage  in  racial  balancing.”    Id.,  at 
189.29 

—————— 

29 The  majority  does  not  dispute  that  it  has  handpicked  data  from  a 
truncated period, ignoring the broader context of that data and what the
data  reflect.    Instead,  the  majority  insists  that  its  selected  data  prove 
that  Harvard’s  “precise  racial  preferences”  “operate  like  clockwork.” 
Ante, at 31–32, n. 7.  The Court’s conclusion that such racial preferences
must be responsible for an “unyielding demographic composition of [the]