Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 119.0

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

13 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

the school’s efforts to assemble classes with a particular ra-
cial composition—and, in particular, to limit the number of
Asian Americans it admits.  Brief for Petitioner 12–14, 25– 
32.  For its part, Harvard expresses regret for its past prac-
tices while denying that they resemble its current ones.  Tr. 
of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 51.  And both schools insist 
that  their  student  bodies  would  lack  sufficient  diversity
without race-conscious admissions.  Brief for Respondent in
No. 20–1199, pp. 52–54; Brief for University Respondents 
in No. 21–707, pp. 54–59. 

When it comes to defining and measuring diversity, the 
parties spar too.  SFFA observes that the racial categories 
the  universities  employ  in  the  name  of  diversity  do  not 
begin to reflect the differences that exist within each group. 
See Part I–B–1, supra.  Instead, they lump together white 
and Asian students from privileged backgrounds with “Jew-
ish, Irish, Polish, or other ‘white’ ethnic groups whose an-
cestors  faced  discrimination”  and  “descendants  of  those 
Japanese-American citizens interned during World War II.” 
Ante, at 45, n. 10 (THOMAS, J., concurring).  Even putting 
all  that  aside,  SFFA  stresses  that  neither  Harvard  nor 
UNC is willing to quantify how much racial and ethnic di-
versity they think sufficient.  And, SFFA contends, the uni-
versities  may  not  wish  to  do  so  because  their  stated  goal 
implies a desire to admit some fixed number (or quota) of 
students  from  each  racial  group.    See  Brief  for  Petitioner 
77, 80; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 21–707, p. 180.  Besides, SFFA 
asks, if it is diversity the schools are after, why do they ex-
hibit  so  little  interest  in  other  (non-racial)  markers  of  it? 
See Brief for Petitioner 78, 83–86.  While Harvard professes 
interest  in  socioeconomic  diversity,  for  example,  SFFA 
points to trial testimony that there are “23 times as many 
rich kids on campus as poor kids.”  2 App. in No. 20–1199,