Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 173

34  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Finally,  the  courts  below  correctly  concluded  that  Har-
vard  complies  with  this  Court’s  repeated  admonition  that 
colleges and universities cannot define their diversity inter-
est  “as  ‘some  specified  percentage  of  a  particular  group 
merely because of its race or ethnic origin.’ ”  Fisher I, 570 
U. S., at 311 (quoting Bakke, 438 U. S., at 307).  Harvard 
does  not  specify  its  diversity  objectives  in  terms  of  racial 
quotas, and “SFFA did not offer expert testimony to support
its racial balancing claim.”  Harvard II, 980 F. 3d, at 180, 
186–187.  Harvard’s  statistical  evidence,  by  contrast, 
showed that the admitted classes across racial groups var-
ied considerably year to year, a pattern “inconsistent with
the imposition of a racial quota or racial balancing.”  Har-
vard  I,  397  F. Supp.  3d,  at  176–177;  see  Harvard  II,  980 
F. 3d, at 180, 188–189. 

Similarly,  Harvard’s  use  of  “one-pagers”  containing  “a 
snapshot  of  various  demographic  characteristics  of  Har-
vard’s applicant pool” during the admissions review process 
is perfectly consistent with this Court’s precedents.  Id., at 
170–171, 189.  Consultation of these reports, with no “spe-
cific  number  firmly  in  mind,”  “does  not  transform  [Har-
vard’s] program into a quota.”  Grutter, 539 U. S., at 335– 
336.  Rather, Harvard’s ongoing review complies with the 
Court’s command that universities periodically review the
necessity of the use of race in their admissions programs. 
Id., at 342; Fisher II, 579 U. S., at 388. 

The  Court  ignores  these  careful  findings  and  concludes
that Harvard engages in racial balancing because its “focus
on numbers is obvious.”  Ante, at 31.  Because SFFA failed 
to offer an expert and to prove its claim below, the majority 

—————— 
the context of their lived experience”); id., at 659 (“The parties stipulated,
and the evidence shows, that readers evaluate applicants by taking into
consideration  dozens  of  criteria,”  and  even  SFFA’s  expert  “concede[d] 
that the University’s admissions process is individualized and holistic”). 
Stated simply, race is not “a defining feature of any individual applica-
tion.”  Id., at 662; see also infra, at 48.