Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 186

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

47 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

trial that racial self-identification was an important com-
ponent  of  their  application  because  without  it  they  would 
not be able to present a full version of themselves.  For ex-
ample, Rimel Mwamba, a Black UNC alumna, testified that
it was “really important” that UNC see who she is “holisti-
cally and how the color of [her] skin and the texture of [her] 
hair  impacted  [her]  upbringing.”  2  App.  in  No.  21–707, 
p. 1033.  Itzel Vasquez-Rodriguez, who identifies as Mexican-
American  of  Cora  descent,  testified  that  her  ethnoracial 
identity  is  a  “core  piece”  of  who  she  is  and  has  impacted 
“every experience” she has had, such that she could not ex-
plain her “potential contributions to Harvard without any 
reference” to it.  2 App. in No. 20–1199, at 906, 908.  Sally
Chen, a Harvard alumna who identifies as Chinese Ameri-
can, explained that being the child of Chinese immigrants
was “really fundamental to explaining who” she is.  Id., at 
968–969.  Thang  Diep,  a  Harvard  alumnus,  testified  that 
his  Vietnamese  identity  was  “such  a  big  part”  of  himself 
that he needed to discuss it in his application.  Id., at 949. 
And Sarah Cole, a Black Harvard alumna, emphasized that
“[t]o try to not see [her] race is to try to not see [her] simply
because there is no part of [her] experience, no part of [her] 
journey,  no  part  of  [her]  life  that  has  been  untouched  by 
[her] race.”  Id., at 932. 

In a single paragraph at the end of its lengthy opinion,
the Court suggests that “nothing” in today’s opinion prohib-
its universities from considering a student’s essay that ex-
plains “how race affected [that student’s] life.”  Ante, at 39. 
This supposed recognition that universities can, in some sit-
uations, consider race in application essays is nothing but 
an attempt to put lipstick on a pig.  The Court’s opinion cir-
cumscribes universities’ ability to consider race in any form 
by meticulously gutting respondents’ asserted diversity in-
terests.  See supra, at 41–43.  Yet, because the Court cannot 
escape the inevitable truth that race matters in students’ 
lives, it announces a false promise to save face and appear