> The judges ruled that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed, not that Harvard had been illegally discriminatory in their admission practices(as was attempted years prior by the same conservative funded activism group)

What on Earth are you talking about? Here are the 237 pages of the Supreme Justices exploring centuries of American law and hundreds of relevant cases regarding racial discrimination: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Specifically, the Justices found Harvard's race-based admissions practices violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that these practices resulted in racial discrimination against Asian American applicants.

Did you just make that up and hope no one would call you out?

> Did you just make that up and hope no one would call you out?

No, but it looks like a lot of people are misunderstanding the court's ruling...

`The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment`

"This admission system is not lawful" is not the same as "your institution has been illegally discriminatory towards a certain race". One is pointing out mismatches between law and reality, the other needs to be backed up by data.

Is it quite possible that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed because they were being illegally discriminatory in their admission practices?

Yes it is, but the court case only answered the first question and previous court cases failed to get a satisfactory(for the conservative groups behind them) ruling on the "illegal discrimination" parts.

It's also possible that the "unconstitutional" program lead to satisfactory results for minority groups(both asian and non-asian), but we are just guessing either way based off of a ruling that's only tangentially related.