Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 187

48  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

attuned to reality.  No one is fooled. 

Further, the Court’s demand that a student’s discussion 
of  racial  self-identification  be  tied  to  individual  qualities,
such  as  “courage,”  “leadership,”  “unique  ability,”  and  “de-
termination,” only serves to perpetuate the false narrative
that  Harvard  and  UNC  currently  provide  “preferences  on 
the basis of race alone.”  Ante, at 28–29, 39; see also ante, 
at  28,  n. 6  (claiming  without  support  that  “race  alone  . . . 
explains the admissions decisions for hundreds if not thou-
sands  of  applicants”).  The  Court’s  precedents  already  re-
quire  that  universities  take  race  into  account  holistically,
in a limited way, and based on the type of “individualized” 
and “flexible” assessment that the Court purports to favor. 
Grutter,  539  U. S.,  at  334;  see  Brief  for  Students  and 
Alumni of Harvard College as Amici Curiae 15–17 (Harvard
College  Brief )  (describing  how  the  dozens  of  application
files in the record “uniformly show that, in line with Har-
vard’s ‘whole-person’ admissions philosophy, Harvard’s ad-
missions officers engage in a highly nuanced assessment of 
each applicant’s background and qualifications”).  After ex-
tensive discovery and two lengthy trials, neither SFFA nor 
the majority can point to a single example of an underrepre-
sented  racial  minority  who  was  admitted  to  Harvard  or 
UNC on the basis of “race alone.” 

In the end, the Court merely imposes its preferred college
application format on the Nation, not acting as a court of 
law applying precedent but taking on the role of college ad-
ministrators  to  decide  what  is  better  for  society.  The 
Court’s course reflects its inability to recognize that racial
identity informs some students’ viewpoints and experiences
in  unique  ways.    The  Court  goes  as  far  as  to  claim  that 
Bakke’s recognition that Black Americans can offer differ-
ent  perspectives  than  white  people  amounts  to  a  “stereo-
type.”  Ante, at 29. 

It is not a stereotype to acknowledge the basic truth that