Page:Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.pdf/75

Rh The Court also correctly refuses to defer to the universities’ own assessments that the alleged benefits of race-conscious admissions programs are compelling. It instead demands that the “interests [universities] view as compelling” must be capable of being “subjected to meaningful judicial review.” In other words, a court must be able to measure the goals asserted and determine when they have been reached. The Court’s opinion today further insists that universities must be able to “articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and the goals they pursue.” Again, I agree. Universities’ self-proclaimed righteousness does not afford them license to discriminate on the basis of race.

In fact, it is error for a court to defer to the views of an alleged discriminator while assessing claims of racial discrimination. See Grutter, 539 U. S., at 362–364 (opinion of ); see also Fisher I, 570 U. S., at 318–319 (, concurring); United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515, 551, n. 19 (1996) (refusing to defer to the Virginia Military Institute’s judgment that the changes necessary to accommodate the admission of women would be too great and characterizing the necessary changes as “manageable”). We would not offer such deference in any other context. In employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for example, courts require only a minimal prima facie showing by a complainant before shifting the burden onto the shoulders of the alleged-discriminator employer. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 803–805 (1973). And, Congress has passed numerous laws—such as the Civil Rights Act of 1875—under its authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, each designed to counter discrimination and each relying on courts to bring a skeptical eye to alleged discriminators.

This judicial skepticism is vital. History has repeatedly