Gorsuch, J., concurring
is not who could hypothetically receive a race-based tip. It is who actually receives one. And on that score the lower courts left no doubt. The district court in the Harvard case found that the school’s admissions policy “cannot … be considered facially neutral from a Title VI perspective given that admissions officers provide [race-based] tips to African American and Hispanic applicants, while white and Asian American applicants are unlikely to receive a meaningful race-based tip.” 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 190, n. 56; see also id., at 189–190 (“Harvard’s admissions process is not facially neutral.”). Likewise, the district court in the UNC case found that admissions officers “sometimes” award race-based plusses to URM candidates—a category that excludes Asian American and white students. 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 591–592, n. 7, 601.[1]
Nor could anyone doubt that these cases are about intentional discrimination just because Harvard in particular “ ‘does not explicitly prioritize any particular racial group over any other.’ ” Post, at 32, n. 27 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.) (emphasis added). Forget for a moment the universities’ concessions about how they deliberately consult race when deciding whom to admit. See supra, at 12–13.[2] Look past
- ↑ The principal dissent suggests “some Asian American applicants are actually advantaged by Harvard’s use of race.” Post, at 60 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). What is the dissent’s basis for that claim? The district court’s finding that “considering applicants’ race may improve the admission chances of some Asian Americans who connect their racial identities with particularly compelling narratives.” 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 178 (emphasis added). The dissent neglects to mention those key qualifications. Worse, it ignores completely the district court’s further finding that “overall” Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy “results in fewer Asian American[s] … being admitted.” Ibid. (emphasis added). So much for affording the district court’s “careful factfinding” the “deference it [is] owe[d].” Post, at 29–30, n. 25 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.).
- ↑ See also, e.g., Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 67, 84, 91; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 21–707, at 70–71, 81, 84, 91–92, 110.
