On Tuesday, a federal judge, Allison D. Burroughs, upheld Harvard’s use of race-conscious admissions in a legal challenge from Students for Fair Admissions, which claims the school was unfairly denying Asian-American students in favor of less qualified candidates in violation of the Civil Rights Act. As soon as the lawsuit made news, it set off a host of broader debates about elite institutions, inequality, intra-racial and interracial divisions and the value of meritocracy itself.

While the ruling will surely be appealed, the judge came to the correct conclusion, faithfully applying the Supreme Court’s well-established standards on including race in admissions decisions. Though not final, the ruling is a victory for both the rule of law and evermore endangered affirmative action policies.

So why do I feel uneasy? Because how you win is as important as winning itself.

The court’s decision focused on diversity as the sole grounds on which the use of race in admissions may be justified. As Judge Burroughs noted in her ruling, diversity-centered admissions policies can “enhance the education of students of all races and backgrounds, to prepare them to assume leadership roles in the increasingly pluralistic society into which they will graduate,” “broaden the perspectives of teachers” and “expand the reach of the curriculum and the range of scholarly interests.”