https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/politics/read-affirmative-action-supreme-court/index.html
“[W]hat can- not be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Consti- tution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibi- tion against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing,) “[W]hat can- not be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Consti- tution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibi- tion against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing,not the name.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim- ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose herit- age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her ex- periences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the oppo- site. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.
