Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 62.0

14  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

circumstances at the time, racial segregation did not “nec-
essarily  imply  the  inferiority  of  either  race  to  the  other”). 
Congress was not persuaded.  Supporters of the soon-to-be
1875  Act  successfully  countered  that  symmetrical  re-
strictions  did  not  constitute  equality,  and  they  did  so  on
colorblind terms. 

For  example,  they  asserted  that  “free  government  de-
mands the abolition of all distinctions founded on color and 
race.”  2 Cong. Rec. 4083 (1874).  And, they submitted that
“[t]he time has come when all distinctions that grew out of
slavery  ought  to  disappear.”  Cong.  Globe,  42d  Cong.,  2d
Sess., 3193 (1872) (“[A]s long as you have distinctions and 
discriminations between white and black in the enjoyment
of legal rights and privileges[,] you will have discontent and 
parties divided between black and white”).  Leading Repub-
lican  Senator  Charles  Sumner  compellingly  argued  that
“any rule excluding a man on account of his color is an in-
dignity, an insult, and a wrong.”  Id., at 242; see also ibid. 
(“I insist that by the law of the land all persons without dis-
tinction of color shall be equal before the law”).  Far from 
conceding that segregation would be perceived as inoffen-
sive if race roles were reversed, he declared that “[t]his is 
plain  oppression,  which  you  . . .  would  feel  keenly  were  it
directed against you or your child.”  Id., at 384.  He went on 
to  paraphrase  the  English  common-law  rule  to  which  he
subscribed: “[The law] makes no discrimination on account 
of color.”  Id., at 385. 

Others echoed this view.  Representative John Lynch de-
clared that “[t]he duty of the law-maker is to know no race,
no color, no religion, no nationality, except to prevent dis-
tinctions on any of these grounds, so far as the law is con-
cerned.”  3 Cong. Rec. 945 (1875).  Senator John Sherman 
believed that the route to peace was to “[w]ipe out all legal 
discriminations  between  white  and  black  [and]  make  no 
distinction  between  black  and  white.”  Cong.  Globe,  42d 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  at  3193.    And,  Senator  Henry  Wilson