That’s okay, because CJ Roberts did consider it.
> Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 12 U.S. C.§2000d. "We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI." Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 276, n. 23 (2003). Although JUSTICE GORSUCH questions that proposition, no party asks us to reconsider it. We accordingly evaluate Harvard's admissions program under the standards of the Equal Protection Clause itself.
It would be terrible for them economically, as one would hope they would lose customers due to the policy, but that's what it should be.
Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider.
Nobody has the right to attend Harvard. They must discriminate based on something. (see: their legacy admission system which accounts for half of all their admissions. Which is fundamentally racist because, guess what color of skin harvard legacy admissions predominantly have?)
> I don't really feel like in 2023 I should have to be arguing that the right to attend a public school shouldn't be conditioned on a pupil's race or ethnicity.
Again, Harvard is NOT a public school. Affirmative action was conditions for receiving public funds. But if you are really mad at harvard for not letting in more deserving students maybe redirect that hate towards the legacy admissions which almost certainly pushed out well deserving students.