Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 77

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

29 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

See ante, at 26, n. 5.  The Court today makes clear that, in
the  future,  universities  wishing  to  discriminate  based  on
race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling 
and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence. 
Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any
will be able to do so. 

C 
In  an  effort  to  salvage  their  patently  unconstitutional 
programs,  the  universities  and  their  amici  pivot  to  argue 
that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the use of race to
benefit only certain racial groups—rather than applicants
writ large.  Yet, this is just the latest disguise for discrimi-
nation.  The sudden narrative shift is not surprising, as it 
has  long  been  apparent  that  “ ‘diversity  [was]  merely  the
current  rationale  of  convenience’ ”  to  support  racially  dis-
criminatory  admissions  programs.    Grutter,  539  U. S.,  at 
393 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).  Under our precedents, this
new rationale is also lacking.

To start, the case for affirmative action has emphasized
a number of rationales over the years, including: (1) resti-
tution  to  compensate  those  who  have  been  victimized  by
past discrimination, (2) fostering “diversity,” (3) facilitating 
“integration” and the destruction of perceived racial castes, 
and  (4)  countering  longstanding  and  diffuse  racial  preju-
dice.  See R. Kennedy, For Discrimination: Race, Affirma-
tive Action, and the Law 78 (2013); see also P. Schuck, Af-
firmative Action: Past, Present, and Future, 20 Yale L. & 
Pol’y Rev. 1, 22–46 (2002).  Again, this Court has only rec-
ognized one interest as compelling: the educational benefits
of diversity embraced in  Grutter.  Yet, as the universities 
define the “diversity” that they practice, it encompasses so-
cial and aesthetic goals far afield from the education-based 
interest  discussed  in  Grutter.  See  supra,  at  23.  The  dis-
sents too attempt to stretch the diversity rationale, suggest-
ing that it supports broad remedial interests.  See, e.g., post,