Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 99.0

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

51 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

odds. 

Nor do JUSTICE JACKSON’s statistics regarding a correla-
tion  between  levels  of  health,  wealth,  and  well-being  be-
tween  selected  racial  groups  prove  anything.    Of  course, 
none  of  those  statistics  are  capable  of  drawing  a  direct 
causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status 
or any other factor—and individual outcomes.  So JUSTICE 
JACKSON supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and 
the  nature  of  inherited  wealth.  This,  she  claims,  locks 
blacks  into  a  seemingly  perpetual  inferior  caste.  Such  a 
view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement 
and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through bar-
riers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victim-
hood.  If an applicant has less financial means (because of
generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a uni-
versity  may  take  that  into  account.  If  an  applicant  has
medical  struggles  or  a  family  member  with  medical  con-
cerns, a university may consider that too.  What it cannot 
do is use the applicant’s skin color as a heuristic, assuming
that  because  the  applicant  checks  the  box  for  “black”  he
therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reduc-
tionist view of an abstract, average black person. 
  Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view 
falls  flat  at  each  step.  Individuals  are  the  sum  of  their 
unique  experiences,  challenges,  and  accomplishments.
What  matters  is  not  the  barriers  they  face,  but  how  they 
choose to confront them.  And their race is not to blame for 
everything—good  or  bad—that  happens  in  their  lives.    A 
contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color 
to  the  total  exclusion  of  their  personal  choices  is  nothing
short of racial determinism. 

JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to
call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts”
and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. 
Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the in-