Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 114.0

8 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

Brief for Asian American Coalition for Education et al. as 
Amici Curiae 12–14, 18–19.  Paid advisors, in turn, tell high
school students of Asian descent to downplay their heritage 
to maximize their odds of admission.  “ ‘We will make them 
appear less Asian when they apply,’ ” one promises.  Id., at 
16.  “ ‘If you’re given an option, don’t attach a photograph to
your application,’ ” another instructs.  Ibid.1  It is difficult 
to imagine those who receive this advice would find comfort
in a bald (and mistaken) assurance that “race-conscious ad-
missions benefit . . . the Asian American community,” post, 
at 60 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting).  See 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 
178 (district court finding that “overall” Harvard’s race-con-
scious  admissions  policy  “results  in  fewer  Asian  Ameri-
can[s]”  being  admitted).    And  it  is  hard  not  to  wonder 
whether those left paying the steepest price are those least 
able to afford it—children of families with no chance of hir-
ing  the  kind  of  consultants  who  know  how  to  play  this 
game.2 

2 

Just as there is no question Harvard and UNC consider 
race in their admissions processes, there is no question both 
schools intentionally treat some applicants worse than oth-
ers because of their race.  Both schools frequently choose to 

—————— 

1 See also A. Qin, Aiming for an Ivy and Trying to Seem ‘Less Asian,’ 
N. Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2022, p. A18, col. 1 (“[T]he rumor that students can
appear ‘too Asian’ has hardened into a kind of received wisdom within
many  Asian  American  communities,”  and  “college  admissions  consult-
ants [have] spoke[n] about trying to steer their Asian American clients 
away from so-called typically Asian activities such as Chinese language 
school, piano and Indian classical instruments.”). 

2 Though the matter did not receive much attention in the proceedings
below,  it  appears  that  the  Common  Application  has  evolved  in  recent 
years to allow applicants to choose among more options to describe their 
backgrounds.  The decisions below do not disclose how much Harvard or 
UNC made use of this further information (or whether they make use of 
it now).  But neither does it make a difference.  Title VI no more tolerates 
discrimination based on 60 racial categories than it does 6.