Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 167.0

28  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Fisher; or, alternatively, (2) whether UNC’s admissions pro-
gram  is  narrowly  tailored,  and  (3)  whether  Harvard’s  ad-
missions program is narrowly tailored.  See Brief for Peti-
tioner in No. 20–1199, p. i; Brief for Respondent in No. 20–
1199, p. i; Brief for University Respondents in No. 21–707, 
p. i.  Answering the last two questions, which call for appli-
cation of settled law to the facts of these cases, is simple: 
Deferring  to  the  lower  courts’  careful  findings  of  fact  and
credibility  determinations,  Harvard’s  and  UNC’s  policies
are narrowly tailored. 

B 
1 

As to narrow tailoring, the only issue SFFA raises in the 
UNC case is that the university cannot use race in its ad-
missions  process  because  race-neutral  alternatives  would 
promote UNC’s diversity objectives.  That issue is so easily 
resolved  in  favor  of  UNC  that  SFFA  devoted  only  three 
pages  to  it  at  the  end  of  its  87-page  brief.    Brief  for  Peti-
tioner 83–86. 

The  use  of  race  is  narrowly  tailored  unless  “workable”
and  “available”  race-neutral  approaches  exist,  meaning 
race-neutral  alternatives  promote  the  institution’s  diver-
sity goals and do so at “ ‘tolerable administrative expense.’ ” 
Fisher I, 570 U. S., at 312 (quoting Wygant v. Jackson Bd. 
of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6 (1986) (plurality opinion)). 
Narrow  tailoring  does  not  mean  perfect  tailoring.    The 
Court’s precedents make clear that “[n]arrow tailoring does
not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral 
alternative.”  Grutter, 539 U. S., at 339.  “Nor does it require
a university to choose between maintaining a reputation for
excellence or fulfilling a commitment to provide educational
opportunities to members of all racial groups.”  Ibid. 

As  the  District  Court  found  after  considering  extensive
expert  testimony,  SFFA’s  proposed  race-neutral  alterna-
tives do not meet those criteria.  UNC, 567 F. Supp. 3d,