Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

among other things, their “class rank, GPA, and test scores; 
the  ratings  assigned  to  them  by  their  initial readers;  and
their status as residents, legacies, or special recruits.”  Ibid. 
(footnote omitted).  The review committee either approves 
or rejects each admission recommendation made by the first
reader, after which the admissions decisions are finalized. 
Ibid.  In making those decisions, the review committee may 
also  consider  the  applicant’s  race.    Id.,  at  607;  2  App.  in 
No. 21–707, p. 407.1 

C 
Petitioner,  Students  for  Fair  Admissions  (SFFA),  is  a 

—————— 

1 JUSTICE  JACKSON  attempts  to  minimize  the  role  that  race  plays  in 
UNC’s  admissions  process  by  noting  that,  from  2016–2021,  the  school
accepted a lower “percentage of the most academically excellent in-state
Black candidates”—that is, 65 out of 67 such applicants (97.01%)—than
it did similarly situated Asian applicants—that is, 1118 out of 1139 such
applicants (98.16%).  Post, at 20 (dissenting opinion); see also 3 App. in
No. 21–707, pp. 1078–1080.  It is not clear how the rejection of just two 
black applicants over five years could be “indicative of a genuinely holis-
tic [admissions] process,” as JUSTICE JACKSON contends.  Post, at 20–21. 
And indeed it cannot be, as the overall acceptance rates of academically
excellent  applicants  to  UNC  illustrates  full  well.    According  to  SFFA’s 
expert, over 80% of all black applicants in the top academic decile were
admitted to UNC, while under 70% of white and Asian applicants in that
decile were admitted.  3 App. in No. 21–707, at 1078–1083.  In the second 
highest academic decile, the disparity is even starker: 83% of black ap-
plicants were admitted, while 58% of white applicants and 47% of Asian
applicants were admitted.  Ibid.  And in the third highest decile, 77% of 
black  applicants  were  admitted,  compared  to  48%  of  white  applicants
and  34%  of  Asian  applicants.    Ibid.  The  dissent  does  not  dispute  the
accuracy of these figures.  See post, at 20, n. 94 (opinion of JACKSON, J.).
And  its  contention  that  white  and  Asian  students  “receive  a  diversity 
plus” in UNC’s race-based admissions system blinks reality.  Post, at 18. 
The same is true at Harvard.  See Brief for Petitioner 24 (“[A]n African 
American [student] in [the fourth lowest academic] decile has a higher 
chance  of  admission  (12.8%)  than  an  Asian  American  in  the top  decile 
(12.7%).”  (emphasis  added));  see  also  4  App.  in  No.  20–1199,  p.  1793
(black applicants in the top four academic deciles are between four and 
ten times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Asian applicants 
in those deciles).