‘A tragedy for us all’: Ketanji Jackson’s impassioned affirmative action dissent | Ketanji Brown Jackson

The US supreme court ruled against considering race in university admissions. Here is Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion

Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens. They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations. Every moment these gaps persist is a moment in which this great country falls short of actualizing one of its foundational principles - the self-evident" truth that all of us are created equal. Yet, today, the Court determines that holistic admissions programs like the one that the University of North Carolina (UNC) has operated, consistent with Grutter v Bollinger (2003), are a problem with respect to achievement of that aspiration, rather than a viable solution (as has long been evident to historians, sociologists, and policymakers alike).

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has persuasively established that nothing in the Constitution or Title VI prohibits institutions from taking race into account to ensure the racial diversity of admits in higher education. I join her opinion without qualification. I write separately to expound upon the universal benefits of considering race in this context, in response to a suggestion that has permeated this legal action from the start. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has maintained, both subtly and overtly, that it is unfair for a college's admissions process to consider race as one factor in a holistic review of its applicants.

This is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion from Thursday's supreme court ruling against affirmative action. It has been lightly edited to remove some footnotes and legal citations