Yeah, I do not understand this claimed basis of Equal Protection either. Taking into account only equal protection, it would still be acceptable for a private

Yeah, I do not understand this claimed basis of Equal Protection either. Taking into account only equal protection, it would still be acceptable for a private institution to say "We want to limit our association with $RACE". Such a policy does not rise to the level of being law (notwithstanding that private institution being considered a de facto arm of the government, which is an argument I'm open to but doesn't seem to have been explored here). If the reasoning of this decision hinged upon interpretation of the Civil Rights Act as banning "positive discrimination", that would make sense independently (I think a concurring opinion might be based on this?). If Harvard College maintained that it didn't want to be discriminating based on race but was being forced to by Title VI, I would see the link to Equal Protection. But as presented the majority opinion seems like a mismatch trying to somehow tie the issue directly to constitutionality. edit: I think they're getting there by this chain: Title VI has provisions mandating equality. Due to the Equal Protection clause, Title VI's provisions that prohibit discrimination must also be construed to prohibit "positive" discrimination. Therefore Harvard is bound by this new interpretation of Title VI which prohibits it from engaging in "positive" discrimination. (contrast with simply ruling parts of Title VI unconstitutional and therefore null and void) Ultimately this feels in line with the continued erosion of separation of powers as every activity gradually comes under the purview of the federal government.