Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 210

2 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
JACKSON, J., dissenting 

holistic admissions programs like the one that the Univer-
sity of North Carolina (UNC) has operated, consistent with 
Grutter  v.  Bollinger,  539  U. S.  306  (2003),  are  a  problem
with respect to achievement of that aspiration, rather than
a viable solution (as has long been evident to historians, so-
ciologists, and policymakers alike). 

JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  has  persuasively  established  that
nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  Title  VI  prohibits  institu-
tions from taking race into account to ensure the racial di-
versity  of  admits  in  higher  education.    I  join  her  opinion 
without qualification.  I write separately to expound upon
the universal benefits of considering race in this context, in 
response to a suggestion that has permeated this legal ac-
tion from the start.  Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)
has maintained, both subtly and overtly, that it is unfair for 
a college’s admissions process to consider race as one factor
in a holistic review of its applicants.  See, e.g., Tr. of Oral 
Arg. 19.

This  contention  blinks  both  history  and  reality  in  ways 
too  numerous  to  count.    But  the  response  is  simple:  Our 
country has never been colorblind.  Given the lengthy his-
tory of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America, 
to say that anyone is now victimized if a college considers 
whether  that  legacy  of  discrimination  has  unequally  ad- 
vantaged  its  applicants  fails  to  acknowledge  the  well-
documented “intergenerational transmission of inequality” 
that still plagues our citizenry.1
  It  is  that  inequality  that  admissions  programs  such  as
UNC’s help to address, to the benefit of us all.  Because the 
majority’s judgment stunts that progress without any basis 
in law, history, logic, or justice, I dissent. 

—————— 

1 M. Oliver & T. Shapiro, Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspec-
tive  on  Racial  Inequality  128  (1997)  (Oliver  &  Shapiro)  (emphasis  de-
leted).