Page:Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.pdf/124

18 the lower courts’ findings recounted above about how the universities intentionally give tips to students of some races and not others. See,. Put to the side telling evidence that came out in discovery. Ignore, too, our many precedents holding that it does not matter how a defendant “label[s]” its practices, Bostock, 590 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14); that intentional discrimination between individuals is unlawful whether “motivated by a wish to achieve classwide equality” or any other purpose, id., at ___ (slip op., at 13); and that “the absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a [merely] discriminatory effect,” Johnson Controls, 499 U. S., at 199. Consider just the dissents in these cases. From start to finish and over the course of nearly 100 pages, they defend the universities’ purposeful discrimination between applicants based on race. “[N]eutrality,” they insist, is not enough. , (opinion of ); cf. (opinion of ). “[T]he use of race,” they stress, “is critical.” (opinion of ); see, , , ; cf. , (opinion of ). Plainly, Harvard and UNC choose to treat some students worse than others in part because of race. To suggest otherwise—or to cling to the fact that the schools do not always say the quiet part aloud—is to deny reality.