Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 190.0

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

51 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

would exclude a talented young biologist who struggled to
maintain above-average grades in humanities classes.  And 
it  would  exclude  a  student  whose  freshman-year  grades
were poor because of a family crisis but who got herself back 
on track in her last three years of school, only to find herself 
just  outside  of  the  top  decile  of  her  class.”  Fisher  II,  579 
U. S., at 386.  A myopic focus on academic ratings “does not
lead to a diverse student body.”  Ibid.35 

2 
As noted above, this Court suggests that the use of race 
in  college  admissions  is  unworkable  because  respondents’
objectives are not sufficiently “measurable,” “focused,” “con-
crete,” and “coherent.”  Ante, at 23, 26, 39.  How much more 
precision  is  required  or  how  universities  are  supposed  to
meet  the  Court’s  measurability  requirement,  the  Court’s 
opinion does not say.  That is exactly the point.  The Court 
is not interested in crafting a workable framework that pro-
motes racial diversity on college campuses.  Instead, it an-
nounces a requirement designed to ensure all race-conscious
plans fail.  Any increased level of precision runs the risk of
violating the Court’s admonition that colleges and univer-
sities operate their race-conscious admissions policies with 
no  “ ‘specified  percentage[s]’ ”  and  no  “specific  number[s] 
firmly in mind.”  Grutter, 539 U. S., at 324, 335.  Thus, the 
majority’s holding puts schools in an untenable position.  It 
creates a legal framework where race-conscious plans must 
be measured with precision but also must not be measured 
with precision.  That holding is not meant to infuse clarity
into the strict scrutiny framework; it is designed to render 
strict scrutiny “ ‘fatal in fact.’ ”  Id., at 326 (quoting Adarand 
—————— 

35 Today’s decision is likely to generate a plethora of litigation by dis-
appointed  college  applicants  who  think  their  credentials  and  personal 
qualities should have secured them admission.  By inviting those chal-
lenges, the Court’s opinion promotes chaos and incentivizes universities 
to convert their admissions programs into inflexible systems focused on 
mechanical factors, which will harm all students.