Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 172

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

33 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

eliminating the use of race in admissions “would reduce Af-
rican American representation . . . from 14% to 6% and His-
panic  representation  from  14%  to  9%.”  Harvard  II,  980 
F. 3d, at 180, 191.  Such impact of Harvard’s limited use of 
race on the makeup of the class is less than this Court has
previously upheld as narrowly tailored.  In Grutter, for ex-
ample, eliminating the use of race would have reduced the 
underrepresented  minority  population  by  72%,  a  much 
greater effect.  539 U. S., at 320.  And in Fisher II, the use 
of race helped increase Hispanic representation from 11% 
to 16.9% (a 54% increase) and African-American represen-
tation  from  3.5%  to  6.8%  (a  94%  increase).    579  U. S.,  at 
384.28 

—————— 

28 Relying on a single footnote in the First Circuit’s opinion, the Court
claims that Harvard’s program is unconstitutional because it “has led to 
an 11.1% decrease in the number of Asian-Americans admitted to Har-
vard.”  Ante, at 27.  The Court of Appeals, however, merely noted that 
the United States, at the time represented by a different administration, 
argued that “absent the consideration of race, [Asian American] repre-
sentation would increase from 24% to 27%,” an 11% increase.  Harvard 
II,  980  F. 3d,  at  191,  n. 29.    Taking  those  calculations  as  correct,  the 
Court of Appeals recognized that such an impact from the use of race on
the overall makeup of the class is consistent with the impact that this
Court’s precedents have tolerated.  Ibid. 

The Court also notes that “race is determinative for at least some—if 
not many—of the students” admitted at UNC.  Ante, at 27.  The District 
Court in the UNC case found that “race plays a role in a very small per-
centage of decisions: 1.2% for in-state students and 5.1% for out-of-state
students.”  567 F. Supp. 3d 580, 634 (MDNC 2021).  The limited use of 
race at UNC thus has a smaller effect than at Harvard and is also con-
sistent with the Court’s precedents.  In addition, contrary to the major-
ity’s suggestion, such effect does not prove that “race alone . . . explains 
the admissions decisions for hundreds if not thousands of applicants to 
UNC each year.”  Ante, at 28, n. 6.  As the District Court found, UNC 
(like Harvard) “engages a highly individualized, holistic review of each 
applicant’s  file,  which  considers  race  flexibly  as  a  ‘plus  factor’  as  one
among many factors in its individualized consideration of each and every 
applicant.”    567  F. Supp.  3d,  at  662;  see  id.,  at  658  (finding  that  UNC 
“rewards different kinds of diversity, and evaluates a candidate within