Page:Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.pdf/123

Rh 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.

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.’ ” (opinion of ) (emphasis added). Forget for a moment the universities’ concessions about how they deliberately consult race when deciding whom to admit. See. Look past