Page:Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.pdf/223

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023)
15

Jackson, J., dissenting

that UNC “enforced its own Jim Crow regulations.”[1] Two generations ago, North Carolina’s Governor still railed against “ ‘integration for integration’s sake’ ”—and UNC Black enrollment was minuscule.[2] So, at bare minimum, one generation ago, James’s family was six generations behind because of their race, making John’s six generations ahead.

These stories are not every student’s story. But they are many students’ stories. To demand that colleges ignore race in today’s admissions practices—and thus disregard the fact that racial disparities may have mattered for where some applicants find themselves today—is not only an affront to the dignity of those students for whom race matters.[3] It also condemns our society to never escape the past that explains how and why race matters to the very concept of who “merits” admission.

Permitting (not requiring) colleges like UNC to assess merit fully, without blinders on, plainly advances (not thwarts) the Fourteenth Amendment’s core promise. UNC considers race as one of many factors in order to best assess the entire unique import of John’s and James’s individual lives and inheritances on an equal basis. Doing so involves acknowledging (not ignoring) the seven generations’ worth of historical privileges and disadvantages that each of these applicants was born with when his own life’s journey started a mere 18 years ago.

II

Recognizing all this, UNC has developed a holistic review process to evaluate applicants for admission. Students


  1. 3 App. 1683.
  2. Id., at 1687–1688.
  3. See O. James, Valuing Identity, 102 Minn. L. Rev. 127, 162 (2017); P. Karlan & D. Levinson, Why Voting Is Different, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1201, 1217 (1996).