Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 111

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

5 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

B 
Applying Title VI to the cases now before us, the result is 
plain.  The parties debate certain details of Harvard’s and 
UNC’s admissions practices.  But no one disputes that both 
universities  operate  “program[s]  or  activit[ies]  receiving
Federal  financial  assistance.”    §2000d.  No  one  questions
that both institutions consult race when making their ad-
missions decisions.  And no one can doubt that both schools 
intentionally  treat  some  applicants  worse  than  others  at
least in part because of their race. 

1 
Start with how Harvard and UNC use race.  Like many
colleges  and  universities,  those  schools  invite  interested 
students to complete the Common Application.  As part of
that  process,  the  trial  records  show,  applicants  are 
prompted  to  tick  one  or  more  boxes  to  explain  “how  you
identify yourself.”  4 App. in No. 21–707, p. 1732.  The avail-
able choices are American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; 
Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pa-
cific Islander; Hispanic or Latino; or White.  Applicants can
write in further details if they choose.  Ibid.; see also 397 
F. Supp. 3d 126, 137 (Mass. 2019); 567 F. Supp. 3d 580, 596
(MDNC 2021). 

Where do these boxes come from?  Bureaucrats.  A federal 
interagency  commission  devised  this  scheme  of  classifica-
tions in the 1970s to facilitate data collection.  See D. Bern-
stein, The Modern American Law of Race, 94 S. Cal. L. Rev. 
171,  196–202  (2021);  see  also  43  Fed.  Reg.  19269  (1978).
That commission acted “without any input from anthropol-
ogists, sociologists, ethnologists, or other experts.”  Brief for 
David E. Bernstein as Amicus Curiae 3 (Bernstein Amicus 
Brief ).  Recognizing  the  limitations  of  their  work,  federal 
regulators  cautioned  that  their  classifications  “should  not
be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in na-
ture, nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility