Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 106

58  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (citing Fordice, 505 U. S., at 748 
(THOMAS, J., concurring)).  And, because race-conscious col-
lege admissions are plainly not necessary to serve even the 
interests of blacks, there is no justification to compel such
programs more broadly.  See Parents Involved, 551 U. S., at 
765 (THOMAS, J., concurring). 

* 

* 

* 
The great failure of this country was slavery and its prog-
eny.  And, the tragic failure of this Court was its misinter-
pretation  of  the  Reconstruction  Amendments,  as  Justice
Harlan predicted in Plessy.  We should not repeat this mis-
take merely because we think, as our predecessors thought,
that the present arrangements are superior to the Consti-
tution. 

The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, 
for all intents and purposes, overruled.  And, it sees the uni-
versities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, 
race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular ra-
cial mix in their entering classes.  Those policies fly in the 
face of our colorblind Constitution and our Nation’s equality
ideal.  In short, they are plainly—and boldly—unconstitu-
tional.  See  Brown  II,  349  U. S.,  at  298  (noting  that  the 
Brown case one year earlier had “declare[d] the fundamen-
tal principle that racial discrimination in public education
is unconstitutional”).

While  I  am  painfully  aware  of  the  social  and  economic 
ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer dis-
crimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will
live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Decla-
ration of Independence and the Constitution of the United 
States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, 
and must be treated equally before the law.