Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 90

42  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

Yet, in the face of those problems, it seems increasingly 
clear that universities are focused on “aesthetic” solutions 
unlikely to help deserving members of minority groups.  In 
fact, universities’ affirmative action programs are a partic-
ularly poor use of such resources.  To start, these programs 
are overinclusive, providing the same admissions bump to
a wealthy black applicant given every advantage in life as
to a black applicant from a poor family with seemingly in-
surmountable  barriers  to  overcome.  In  doing  so,  the  pro-
grams may wind up helping the most well-off members of 
minority  races  without  meaningfully  assisting  those  who
struggle with real hardship.  Simultaneously, the programs 
risk  continuing  to  ignore  the  academic  underperformance
of “the purported ‘beneficiaries’ ” of racial preferences and 
the racial stigma that those preferences generate.  Grutter, 
539 U. S., at 371 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  Rather than per-
forming  their  academic  mission,  universities  thus  may 
“see[k]  only  a  facade—it  is  sufficient  that  the  class  looks 
right, even if it does not perform right.”  Id., at 372. 

D 
Finally,  it  is  not  even  theoretically  possible  to  “help”  a
certain  racial  group  without  causing  harm  to  members  of
other racial groups.  “It should be obvious that every racial 
classification  helps,  in  a  narrow  sense,  some  races  and 
hurts others.”  Adarand, 515 U. S., at 241, n. * (opinion of 
THOMAS, J.).  And, even purportedly benign race-based dis-
crimination  has  secondary  effects  on  members  of  other 
races.  The antisubordination view thus has never guided 
the Court’s analysis because “whether a law relying upon
racial  taxonomy  is  ‘benign’  or  ‘malign’  either  turns  on 
‘whose ox is gored’ or on distinctions found only in the eye 
of the beholder.”  Ibid. (citations and some internal quota-
tion marks omitted).  Courts are not suited to the impossi-
ble task of determining which racially discriminatory pro-
grams  are  helping  which  members  of  which  races—and