Regents v. Bakke (1978)

438 U.S. 265 (1978) REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE. No. 76-811. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 12, 1977. Decided June 28, 1978. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. *268 Archibald Cox argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Paul J. Mishkin, Jack B. Owens, and Donald L. Reidhaar. Reynold H. Colvin argued the cause and filed briefs for respondent. Solicitor General McCree argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae. With him on the briefs were Attorney General Bell, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Miriam R. Eisenstein, and Vincent F. O'Rourke. [*] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Lawrence A. Poltrock and Wayne B. Giampietro for the American Federation of Teachers; by Abraham S. Goldstein, Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Arthur J. Gajarsa, Thaddeus L. Kowalski, Anthony J. Fornelli, Howard L. Greenberger, Samuel Rabinove, Themis N. Anastos, Julian E. Kulas, and Alan M. Dershowitz for the American Jewish Committee et al.; by McNeill Stokes and Ira J. Smotherman, Jr., for the American Subcontractors Assn.; by Philip B. Kurland, Daniel D. Polsby, Larry M. Lavinsky, Arnold Forster, Dennis Rapps, Anthony J. Fornelli, Leonard Greenwald, and David I. Ashe for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith et al.; by Charles G. Bakaly and Lawrence B. Kraus for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States; by Roger A. Clark, Jerome K. Tankel, and Glen R. Murphy for the Fraternal Order of Police et al.; by Judith R. Cohn for the Order Sons of Italy in America; by Ronald A. Zumbrun, John H. Findley, and William F. Harvey for the Pacific Legal Foundation; by Benjamin Vinar and David I. Caplan for the Queens Jewish Community Council et al.; and by Jennings P. Felix for Young Americans for Freedom. Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Matthew W. Finkin for the American Assn. of University Professors; by John W. Finley, Jr., Michael Blinick, John Cannon, Leonard J. Theberge, and Edward H. Dowd for the Committee on Academic Nondiscrimination and Integrity et al.; by Kenneth C. McGuiness, Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Ronald M. Green for the Equal Employment Advisory Council; by Charles E. Wilson for the Fair Employment Practice Comm'n of California; by Mario G. Obledo for Jerome A. Lackner, Director of the Department of Health of California, et al.; by Vilma S. Martinez, Peter D. Roos, and Ralph Santiago Abascal for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund et al.; by Eva S. Goodwin for the National Assn. of Affirmative Action Officers; by Lennox S. Hinds for the National Conference of Black Lawyers; by David Ginsburg for the National Fund for Minority Engineering Students; by A. John Wabaunsee, Walter R. EchoHawk, and Thomas W. Fredericks for the Native American Law Students of the University of California at Davis et al.; by Joseph A. Broderick, Calvin Brown, LeMarquis DeJarmon, James E. Ferguson II, Harry E. Groves, John H. Harmon, William A. Marsh, Jr., and James W. Smith for the North Carolina Assn. of Black Lawyers; by Leonard F. Walentynowicz for the Polish American Congress et al.; by Daniel M. Luevano and John E. McDermott for the UCLA Black Law Students Assn. et al.; by Henry A. Waxman pro se; by Leo Branton, Jr., Ann Fagan Ginger, Sam Rosenwein, and Laurence R. Sperber for Price M. Cobbs, M.D., et al.; by John S. Nolan for Ralph J. Galliano; and by Daniel T. Spitler for Timothy J. Hoy. *269 MR. JUSTICE POWELL announced the judgment of the Court. This case presents a challenge to the special admissions program of the petitioner, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis, which is designed to assure the admission *270 of a specified number of students from certain minority groups. The Superior Court of California sustained respondent's challenge, holding that petitioner's program violated the California Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court enjoined petitioner from considering respondent's race or the race of any other applicant in making admissions decisions. It refused, however, to order respondent's admission to the Medical School, holding that he had not carried his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the constitutional and statutory violations. The Supreme Court of California affirmed those portions of the trial court's judgment declaring the special admissions program unlawful and enjoining petitioner from considering the race of any applicant. [†] *271 It modified that portion of the judgment denying respondent's requested injunction and directed the trial court to order his admission. For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner's special admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the Medical School must be affirmed. For the reasons expressed in a separate opinion, my Brothers THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS concur in this judgment. *272 I also conclude for the reasons stated in the following opinion that the portion of the court's judgment enjoining petitioner from according any consideration to race in its admissions process must be reversed. For reasons expressed in separate opinions, my Brothers MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concur in this judgment. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. I [††] The Medical School of the University of California at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50 students. In 1971, the size of the entering class was increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains. No admissions program for disadvantaged or minority students existed when the school opened, and the first class contained three Asians but no blacks, no Mexican-Americans, and no American Indians. Over the next two years, the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of "disadvantaged" students in each Medical School class. [1] The special program consisted of *273 a separate admissions system operating in coordination with the regular admissions process. Under the regular admissions procedure, a candidate could submit his application to the Medical School beginning in July of the year preceding the academic year for which admission was sought. Record 149. Because of the large number of applications, [2] the admissions committee screened each one to select candidates for further consideration. Candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. Id., at 63. About *274 one out of six applicants was invited for a personal interview. Ibid. Following the interviews, each candidate was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by his interviewers and four other members of the admissions committee. The rating embraced the interviewers' summaries, the candidate's overall grade point average, grade point average in science courses, scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and other biographical data. Id., at 62. The ratings were added together to arrive at each candidate's "benchmark" score. Since five committee members rated each candidate in 1973, a perfect score was 500; in 1974, six members rated each candidate, so that a perfect score was 600. The full committee then reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admission on a "rolling" basis. [3] The chairman was responsible for placing names on the waiting list. They were not placed in strict numerical order; instead, the chairman had discretion to include persons with "special skills." Id., at 63-64. The special admissions program operated with a separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups. Id., at 163. On the 1973 application form, candidates were asked to indicate whether they wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants; on the 1974 form the question was whether they wished to be considered as members of a "minority group," which the Medical School apparently viewed as "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians." Id., at 65-66, 146, 197, 203-205, 216-218. If these questions were answered affirmatively, the application was forwarded to the special admissions committee. No formal definition of "disadvantaged" *275 was ever produced, id., at 163-164, but the chairman of the special committee screened each application to see whether it reflected economic or educational deprivation. [4] Having passed this initial hurdle, the applications then were rated by the special committee in a fashion similar to that used by the general admissions committee, except that special candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point average cutoff applied to regular applicants. About one-fifth of the total number of special applicants were invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974. [5] Following each interview, the special committee assigned each special applicant a benchmark score. The special committee then presented its top choices to the general admissions committee. The latter did not rate or compare the special candidates against the general applicants, id., at 388, but could reject recommended special candidates for failure to meet course requirements or other specific deficiencies. Id., at 171-172. The special committee continued to recommend special applicants until a number prescribed by faculty vote were admitted. While the overall class size was still 50, the prescribed number was 8; in 1973 and 1974, when the class size had doubled to 100, the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled, to 16. Id., at 164, 166. From the year of the increase in class size—1971—through 1974, the special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students, 30 Mexican-Americans, and 12 Asians, for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same period, the regular admissions program produced 1 black, 6 Mexican-Americans, *276 and 37 Asians, for a total of 44 minority students. [6] Although disadvantaged whites applied to the special program in large numbers, see n. 5, supra, none received an offer of admission through that process. Indeed, in 1974, at least, the special committee explicitly considered only "disadvantaged" special applicants who were members of one of the designated minority groups. Record 171. Allan Bakke is a white male who applied to the Davis Medical School in both 1973 and 1974. In both years Bakke's application was considered under the general admissions program, and he received an interview. His 1973 interview was with Dr. Theodore C. West, who considered Bakke "a very desirable applicant to [the] medical school." Id., at 225. Despite a strong benchmark score of 468 out of 500, Bakke was rejected. His application had come late in the year, and no applicants in the general admissions process with scores below 470 were accepted after Bakke's application was completed. Id., at 69. There were four special admissions slots unfilled at that time, however, for which Bakke was not considered. Id., at 70. After his 1973 rejection, Bakke wrote to Dr. George H. Lowrey, Associate Dean and Chairman of the Admissions Committee, protesting that the special admissions program operated as a racial and ethnic quota. Id., at 259. *277 Bakke's 1974 application was completed early in the year. Id., at 70. His student interviewer gave him an overall rating of 94, finding him "friendly, well tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with." Id., at 229. His faculty interviewer was, by coincidence, the same Dr. Lowrey to whom he had written in protest of the special admissions program. Dr. Lowrey found Bakke "rather limited in his approach" to the problems of the medical profession and found disturbing Bakke's "very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem." Id., at 226. Dr. Lowrey gave Bakke the lowest of his six ratings, an 86; his total was 549 out of 600. Id., at 230. Again, Bakke's application was rejected. In neither year did the chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. Lowrey, exercise his discretion to place Bakke on the waiting list. Id., at 64. In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages, MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke's. [7] After the second rejection, Bakke filed the instant suit in the Superior Court of California. [8] He sought mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medical School. He alleged that the Medical School's special admissions program operated to exclude him from the *278 school on the basis of his race, in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, [9] Art. I, § 21, of the California Constitution, [10] and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252 , 42 U. S. C. § 2000d. [11] The University cross-complained for a declaration that its special admissions program was lawful. The trial *279 court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in the special program were rated only against one another, Record 388, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Id., at 295-296. Declaring that the University could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the trial court held the challenged program violative of the Federal Constitution, the State Constitution, and Title VI. The court refused to order Bakke's admission, however, holding that he had failed to carry his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the existence of the special program. Bakke appealed from the portion of the trial court judgment denying him admission, and the University appealed from the decision that its special admissions program was unlawful and the order enjoining it from considering race in the processing of applications. The Supreme Court of California transferred the case directly from the trial court, "because of the importance of the issues involved." 18 Cal. 3d 34, 39 , 553 P. 2d 1152, 1156 (1976). The California court accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the University's program. [12] Because the special admissions program involved a racial classification, the Supreme Court held itself bound to apply strict scrutiny. Id., at 49 , 553 P. 2d, at 1162-1163 . It then turned to the goals the University presented as justifying the special program. Although the court agreed that the goals of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicians willing to serve members of minority groups were compelling state interests, id., at 53 , 553 P. 2d, at 1165 , it concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving those goals. Without passing on the state constitutional or the federal statutory grounds cited in the trial court's judgment, the California court held *280 that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that "no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race." Id., at 55 , 553 P. 2d, at 1166 . Turning to Bakke's appeal, the court ruled that since Bakke had established that the University had discriminated against him on the basis of his race, the burden of proof shifted to the University to demonstrate that he would not have been admitted even in the absence of the special admissions program. [13] Id., at 63-64 , 553 P. 2d, at 1172 . The court analogized Bakke's situation to that of a plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-17 (1970 ed., Supp. V), see, e. g., Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 772 (1976). 18 Cal. 3d, at 63-64 , 553 P. 2d, at 1172 . On this basis, the court initially ordered a remand for the purpose of determining whether, under the newly allocated burden of proof, Bakke would have been admitted to either the 1973 or the 1974 entering class in the absence of the special admissions program. App. A to Application for Stay 48. In its petition for rehearing below, however, the University conceded its inability to carry that burden. App. B to Application for Stay A19-A20. [14] The *281 California court thereupon amended its opinion to direct that the trial court enter judgment ordering Bakke's admission to the Medical School. 18 Cal. 3d, at 64 , 553 P. 2d, at 1172 . That order was stayed pending review in this Court. 429 U. S. 953 (1976). We granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional issue. 429 U. S. 1090 (1977). II In this Court the parties neither briefed nor argued the applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rather, as had the California court, they focused exclusively upon the validity of the special admissions program under the Equal Protection Clause. Because it was possible, however, that a decision on Title VI might obviate resort to constitutional interpretation, see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (concurring opinion), we requested supplementary briefing on the statutory issue. 434 U. S. 900 (1977). A At the outset we face the question whether a right of action for private parties exists under Title VI. Respondent argues that there is a private right of action, invoking the test set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975). He contends *282 that the statute creates a federal right in his favor, that legislative history reveals an intent to permit private actions, [15] that such actions would further the remedial purposes of the statute, and that enforcement of federal rights under the Civil Rights Act generally is not relegated to the States. In addition, he cites several lower court decisions which have recognized or assumed the existence of a private right of action. [16] Petitioner denies the existence of a private right of action, arguing that the sole function of § 601, see n. 11, supra, was to establish a predicate for administrative action under § 602, 78 Stat. 252 , 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-1. [17] In its view, administrative curtailment of federal funds under that section was the only sanction to be imposed upon recipients that *283 violated § 601. Petitioner also points out that Title VI contains no explicit grant of a private right of action, in contrast to Titles II, III, IV, and VII, of the same statute, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000a-3 (a), 2000b-2, 2000c-8, and 2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed. and Supp. V). [18] We find it unnecessary to resolve this question in the instant case. The question of respondent's right to bring an action under Title VI was neither argued nor decided in either of the courts below, and this Court has been hesitant to review questions not addressed below. McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434-435 (1940). See also Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U. S. 322 (1977); Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 439 (1969). Cf. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 121 (1976). We therefore do not address this difficult issue. Similarly, we need not pass *284 upon petitioner's claim that private plaintiffs under Title VI must exhaust administrative remedies. We assume, only for the purposes of this case, that respondent has a right of action under Title VI. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 , 571 n. 2 (1974) (STEWART, J., concurring in result). B The language of § 601, 78 Stat. 252 , like that of the Equal Protection Clause, is majestic in its sweep: "No 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." The concept of "discrimination," like the phrase "equal protection of the laws," is susceptible of varying interpretations, for as Mr. Justice Holmes declared, "[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used." Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, 425 (1918). We must, therefore, seek whatever aid is available in determining the precise meaning of the statute before us. Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U. S. 1, 10 (1976), quoting United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940). Examination of the voluminous legislative history of Title VI reveals a congressional intent to halt federal funding of entities that violate a prohibition of racial discrimination similar to that of the Constitution. Although isolated statements of various legislators, taken out of context, can be marshaled in support of the proposition that § 601 enacted a purely color-blind scheme, [19] without regard to the reach of the Equal Protection *285 Clause, these comments must be read against the background of both the problem that Congress was addressing and the broader view of the statute that emerges from a full examination of the legislative debates. The problem confronting Congress was discrimination against Negro citizens at the hands of recipients of federal moneys. Indeed, the color blindness pronouncements cited in the margin at n. 19, generally occur in the midst of extended remarks dealing with the evils of segregation in federally funded programs. Over and over again, proponents of the bill detailed the plight of Negroes seeking equal treatment in such programs. [20] There simply was no reason for Congress to consider the validity of hypothetical preferences that might be accorded minority citizens; the legislators were dealing with the real and pressing problem of how to guarantee those citizens equal treatment. In addressing that problem, supporters of Title VI repeatedly declared that the bill enacted constitutional principles. For example, Representative Celler, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and floor manager of the legislation in the House, emphasized this in introducing the bill: "The bill would offer assurance that hospitals financed by Federal money would not deny adequate care to Negroes. It would prevent abuse of food distribution programs whereby Negroes have been known to be denied food *286 surplus supplies when white persons were given such food. It would assure Negroes the benefits now accorded only white students in programs of high[er] education financed by Federal funds. It would, in short, assure the existing right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of Federal funds. It would not destroy any rights of private property or freedom of association." 110 Cong. Rec. 1519 (1964) (emphasis added). Other sponsors shared Representative Celler's view that Title VI embodied constitutional principles. [21] In the Senate, Senator Humphrey declared that the purpose of Title VI was "to insure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the Nation." Id., at 6544. Senator Ribicoff agreed that Title VI embraced the constitutional standard: "Basically, there is a constitutional restriction against discrimination in the use of federal funds; and title VI simply spells out the procedure to be used in enforcing that restriction." Id., at 13333. Other Senators expressed similar views. [22] Further evidence of the incorporation of a constitutional standard into Title VI appears in the repeated refusals of the legislation's supporters precisely to define the term "discrimination." Opponents sharply criticized this failure, [23] but proponents of the bill merely replied that the meaning of *287 "discrimination" would be made clear by reference to the Constitution or other existing law. For example, Senator Humphrey noted the relevance of the Constitution: "As I have said, the bill has a simple purpose. That purpose is to give fellow citizens—Negroes—the same rights and opportunities that white people take for granted. This is no more than what was preached by the prophets, and by Christ Himself. It is no more than what our Constitution guarantees." Id., at 6553. [24] In view of the clear legislative intent, Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment. III A Petitioner does not deny that decisions based on race or ethnic origin by faculties and administrations of state universities are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938); Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637 (1950). For his part, respondent does not argue that all racial or ethnic classifications are per se invalid. See, e. g., Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81 (1943); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944); Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333, 334 (1968) (Black, Harlan, and STEWART, JJ., concurring); United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977). The parties do disagree as to the level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to the special admissions program. Petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny, as this inexact term has been *288 applied in our cases. That level of review, petitioner asserts, should be reserved for classifications that disadvantage "discrete and insular minorities." See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144 , 152 n. 4 (1938). Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the California court correctly rejected the notion that the degree of judicial scrutiny accorded a particular racial or ethnic classification hinges upon membership in a discrete and insular minority and duly recognized that the "rights established [by the Fourteenth Amendment] are personal rights." Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948). En route to this crucial battle over the scope of judicial review, [25] the parties fight a sharp preliminary action over the proper characterization of the special admissions program. Petitioner prefers to view it as establishing a "goal" of minority representation in the Medical School. Respondent, echoing the courts below, labels it a racial quota. [26] *289 This semantic distinction is beside the point: The special admissions program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background. To the extent that there existed a pool of at least minimally qualified minority applicants to fill the 16 special admissions seats, white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants. Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status. [27] The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons. Its language is explicit: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is settled beyond question that the "rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights," Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, at 22 . Accord, Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra, at 351 ; McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, 161-162 (1914). The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when *290 applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal. Nevertheless, petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny to the special admissions program because white males, such as respondent, are not a "discrete and insular minority" requiring extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process. Carolene Products Co., supra, at 152-153, n. 4. This rationale, however, has never been invoked in our decisions as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny. Nor has this Court held that discreteness and insularity constitute necessary preconditions to a holding that a particular classification is invidious. [28] See, e. g., Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 94-97 (1965). These characteristics may be relevant in deciding whether or not to add new types of classifications to the list of "suspect" categories or whether a particular classification survives close examination. See, e. g., Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 313 (1976) (age); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 28 (1973) (wealth); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971) (aliens). Racial and ethnic classifications, however, are subject to stringent examination without regard to these additional characteristics. We declared as much in the first cases explicitly to recognize racial distinctions as suspect: "Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people *291 whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi, 320 U. S., at 100 . "[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny." Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 216 . The Court has never questioned the validity of those pronouncements. Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination. B This perception of racial and ethnic distinctions is rooted in our Nation's constitutional and demographic history. The Court's initial view of the Fourteenth Amendment was that its "one pervading purpose" was "the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised dominion over him." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873). The Equal Protection Clause, however, was "[v]irtually strangled in infancy by post-civil-war judicial reactionism." [29] It was relegated to decades of relative desuetude while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, after a short germinal period, flourished as a cornerstone in the Court's defense of property and liberty of contract. See, e. g., Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661 (1887); Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578 (1897); Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). In that cause, the Fourteenth Amendment's "one pervading purpose" was displaced. See, e. g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896). It was only as the era of substantive due process came to a close, see, e. g., Nebbia v. New *292 York, 291 U. S. 502 (1934); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 (1937), that the Equal Protection Clause began to attain a genuine measure of vitality, see, e. g., United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U. S. 144 (1938); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra . By that time it was no longer possible to peg the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority. During the dormancy of the Equal Protection Clause, the United States had become a Nation of minorities. [30] Each had to struggle [31] —and to some extent struggles still [32] —to overcome the prejudices not of a monolithic majority, but of a "majority" composed of various minority groups of whom it was said—perhaps unfairly in many cases— that a shared characteristic was a willingness to disadvantage other groups. [33] As the Nation filled with the stock of many lands, the reach of the Clause was gradually extended to all ethnic groups seeking protection from official discrimination. See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 308 (1880) (Celtic Irishmen) (dictum); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886) (Chinese); Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 41 (1915) (Austrian resident aliens); Korematsu, supra (Japanese); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954) (Mexican-Americans). The guarantees of equal protection, said the Court in *293 Yick Wo , "are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." 118 U. S., at 369 . Although many of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment conceived of its primary function as bridging the vast distance between members of the Negro race and the white "majority," Slaughter-House Cases, supra , the Amendment itself was framed in universal terms, without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. As this Court recently remarked in interpreting the 1866 Civil Rights Act to extend to claims of racial discrimination against white persons, "the 39th Congress was intent upon establishing in the federal law a broader principle than would have been necessary simply to meet the particular and immediate plight of the newly freed Negro slaves." McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273, 296 (1976). And that legislation was specifically broadened in 1870 to ensure that "all persons," not merely "citizens," would enjoy equal rights under the law. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 192-202 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). Indeed, it is not unlikely that among the Framers were many who would have applauded a reading of the Equal Protection Clause that states a principle of universal application and is responsive to the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the Nation. See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1056 (1866) (remarks of Rep. Niblack); id., at 2891-2892 (remarks of Sen. Conness); id., 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 883 (1868) (remarks of Sen. Howe) (Fourteenth Amendment "protect[s] classes from class legislation"). See also Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 1 , 60-63 (1955). Over the past 30 ye

*269 Mr. Justice Powell announced the judgment of the Court. This case presents a challenge to the special admissions program of the petitioner, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis, which is designed to assure the admis *270 sion of a specified number of students from certain minority groups. The Superior Court of California sustained respondent’s challenge, holding that petitioner’s program violated the California Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 200Ód et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court enjoined petitioner from considering respondent’s race or the race of any other applicant in making admissions decisions. It refused, however, to order respondent’s admission to the Medical School, holding that he had not carried his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the constitutional and statutory violations. The Supreme Court of California affirmed those portions of the trial court’s judgment declaring the special admissions program unlawful and enjoining petitioner from considering the race of any applicant. *271 † It modified that portion of the judgment denying respondent’s requested injunction and directed the trial court to order his admission. For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner’s special admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the Medical School must be affirmed. For the reasons expressed in a separate opinion, my Brothers The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and Mr. Justice Stevens concur in this judgment. *272 I also conclude for the reasons stated in the following opinion that the portion of the court’s judgment enjoining petitioner from according any consideration to race in its admissions process must be reversed. For reasons expressed in separate opinions, my Brothers Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun concur in this judgment. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. I ‡ The Medical School of the University of California at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50 students. In 1971, the size of the entering class was increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains. No admissions program for disadvantaged or minority students existed when the school opened, and the first class contained three Asians but no blacks, no Mexican-Americans, and no American Indians. Over the next two years, the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of “disadvantaged” students in each Medical School class. 1 The special program consisted of *273 a separate admissions system operating in coordination with the regular admissions process. Under the regular admissions procedure, a candidate could submit his application to the Medical School beginning in July of the year preceding the academic year for which admission was sought. Record 149. Because of the large number of applications, 2 the admissions committee screened each one to select candidates for further consideration. Candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. Id., at 63. About *274 one out of six applicants was invited for a personal interview. Ibid. Following the interviews, each candidate was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by his interviewers and four other members of the admissions committee. The rating embraced the interviewers’ summaries, the candidate’s overall grade point average, grade point average in science courses, scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and other biographical data. Id., at 62. The ratings were added together to arrive at each candidate’s “benchmark” score. Since five committee members rated each candidate in 1973, a perfect score was 500; in 1974, six members rated each candidate, so that a perfect score was 600. The full committee then reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admission on a “rolling” basis. 3 The chairman was responsible for placing names on the waiting list. They were not placed in strict numerical order; instead, the chairman had discretion to include persons with “special skills.” Id., at 63-64. The special admissions program operated with a separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups. Id., at 163. On the 1973 application form, candidates were asked to indicate whether they wished to be considered as “economically and/or educationally disadvantaged” applicants; on the 1974 form the question was whether they wished to be considered as members of a “minority group,” which the Medical School apparently viewed as “Blacks,” “Chícanos,” “Asians,” and “American Indians.” Id., at 65-66, 146, 197, 203-205, 216-218. If these questions were answered affirmatively, the application was forwarded to the special admissions committee. No formal definition of “disad *275 vantaged” was ever produced, id., at 163-164, but the chairman of the special committee screened each application to see whether it reflected economic or educational deprivation. 4 Having passed this initial hurdle, the applications then were rated by the special committee in a fashion similar to that used by the general admissions committee, except that special candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point average cutoff applied to regular applicants. About one-fifth of the total number of special applicants were invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974. 5 Following each interview, the special committee assigned each special applicant a benchmark score. The special committee then presented its top choices to the general admissions committee. The latter did not rate or compare the special candidates against the general applicants, id., at 388, but could reject recommended special candidates for failure to meet course requirements or other specific deficiencies. Id., at 171-172. The special committee continued to recommend special applicants until a number prescribed by faculty vote were admitted. While the overall class size was still 50, the prescribed number was 8; in 1973 and 1974, when the class size had doubled to 100, the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled, to 16. Id., at 164,166. From the year of the increase in class size — 1971 — through 1974, the special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students, 30 Mexican-Americans, and 12 Asians, for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same period, the regular admissions program produced 1 black, 6 Mexican-Americans, *276 and 37 Asians, for a total of 44 minority students. 6 Although disadvantaged whites applied to the special program in large numbers, see n. 5, supra, none received an offer of admission through that process. Indeed, in 1974, at least, the special committee explicitly considered only “disadvantaged” special applicants who were members of one of the designated minority groups. Record 171. Allan Bakke is a white male who applied to the Davis Medical School in both 1973 and 1974. In both years Bakke’s application was considered under the general admissions program, and he received an interview. His 1973 interview was with Dr. Theodore C. West, who considered Bakke “a very desirable applicant to [the] medical school.” Id., at 225. Despite a strong benchmark score of 468 out of 500, Bakke was rejected. His application had come late in the year, and no applicants in the general admissions process with scores below 470 were accepted after Bakke’s application was completed. Id., at 69. There were four special admissions slots unfilled at that time, however, for which Bakke was not considered. Id., at 70. After his 1973 rejection, Bakke wrote to Dr. George H. Lowrey, Associate Dean and Chairman of the Admissions Committee, protesting that the special admissions program operated as a racial and ethnic quota. Id., at 259. *277 Bakke’s 1974 application was completed early in the year. Id., at 70. His student interviewer gave him an overall rating of 94, finding him “friendly, well tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with.” Id., at 229. His faculty interviewer was, by coincidence, the same Dr. Lowrey to whom he had written in protest of the special admissions program. Dr. Lowrey found Bakke “rather limited in his approach” to the problems of the medical profession and found disturbing Bakke’s “very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem.” Id., at 226. Dr. Lowrey gave Bakke the lowest of his six ratings, an 86; his total was 549 out of 600. Id., at 230. Again, Bakke’s application was rejected. In neither year did the chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. Lowrey, exercise his discretion to place Bakke on the waiting list. Id., at 64. In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages, MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke’s. 7 After the second rejection, Bakke filed the instant suit in the Superior Court of California, 8 He sought mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medical School. He alleged that the Medical School’s special admissions program operated to exclude him from the *278 school on the basis of his race, in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 9 Art. I, § 21, of the California Constitution, 10 and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252 , 42 U. S. C. § 2000d. 11 The University cross-complained for a declaration that its special admissions program was lawful. The trial *279 court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in the special program were rated only against one another, Record 388, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Id., at 295-296. Declaring that the University could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the trial court held the challenged program violative of the Federal Constitution, the State Constitution, and Title VI. The court refused to order Bakke’s admission, however, holding that he had failed to carry his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the existence of the special program. Bakke appealed from the portion of the trial court judgment denying him admission, and the University appealed from the decision that its special admissions program was unlawful and the order enjoining it from considering race in the processing of applications. The Supreme Court of California transferred the case directly from the trial court, “because of the importance of the issues involved.” 18 Cal. 3d 34, 39 , 553 P. 2d 1152, 1156 (1976). The California court accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the University's program. 12 Because the special admissions program involved a .racial classification, the Supreme Court held itself bound to apply strict scrutiny. Id., at 49 , 553 P. 2d, at 1162-1163 . It then turned to the goals the University presented as justifying the special program. Although the court agreed that the goals of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicians willing to serve members of minority groups were compelling state interests, id., at 53 , 553 P. 2d, at 1165 , it concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving those goals. Without passing on the state constitutional or the federal statutory grounds cited in the trial court’s judgment, the California court held *280 that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race.” Id., at 55 , 553 P. 2d, at 1166 . Turning to Bakke’s appeal, the court ruled that since Bakke had established that the University had discriminated against him on the basis of his race, the burden of proof shifted to the University to demonstrate that he would not have been admitted even in the absence of the special admissions program. 13 Id., at 63-64 , 553 P. 2d,, at 1172. The court analogized Bakke’s situation to that of a. plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-17 (1970 ed., Supp. V), see, e. g., Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 772 (1976).. 18 Cal. 3d, at 63-64 , 553 P. 2d, at 1172 . On this basis, the court initially ordered a remand for the purpose of determining whether, under the newly allocated burden of proof, Bakke would have been admitted to either the 1973 or the 1974 entering class in the absence of the special admissions program. App. A to Application for Stay 48. In its petition for rehearing below, however, the University conceded its inability to carry that burden. App. B to Application for Stay A19-A20. 14 The *281 California court thereupon amended its opinion to direct that the trial court enter judgment ordering Bakke’s admission to the Medical School. 18 Cal. 3d, at 64 , 553 P. 2d, at 1172 . That order was stayed pending review in this Court. 429 U. S. 953 (1976). We granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional issue. 429 U. S. 1090 (1977). II In this Court the parties neither briefed nor argued the applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rather, as had the California court, they focused exclusively upon the validity of the special admissions program under the Equal Protection Clause. Because it was possible, however, that a decision on Title VI might obviate resort to constitutional interpretation, see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (concurring opinion), we requested supplementary briefing on the statutory issue. 434 U. S. 900 (1977). A At the outset we face the question whether a right of action for private parties exists under Title VI. Respondent argues that there is a private right of action, invoking the test set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975). He contends *282 that the statute creates a federal right in his favor, that legislative history reveals an intent to permit private actions, 15 that such actions would further the remedial purposes of the statute, and that enforcement of federal rights under the Civil Rights Act generally is not relegated to the States. In addition, he cites several lower court decisions which have recognized or assumed the existence of a private right of action. 16 Petitioner denies the existence of a private right of action, arguing that the sole function of § 601, see n. 11, supra, was to establish a predicate for administrative action under § 602, 78 Stat. 252 , 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-l. 17 In its view, administrative curtailment of federal funds under that section was the only sanction to be imposed upon recipients that *283 violated § 601. Petitioner also points out that Title VI contains no explicit grant of a private right of action, in contrast to Titles II, III, IV, and VII, of the same statute, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000a-3 (a), 2000b-2, 2000c-8, and 2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed. and Supp. V). 18 We find it unnecessary to resolve this question in the instant case. The question of respondent’s right to bring an action under Title VI was neither argued nor decided in either of the courts below, and this Court has been hesitant to review questions not addressed below. McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434-435 (1940). See also Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U. S. 322 (1977); Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 439 (1969). Cf. Singleton, v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 121 (1976). We therefore do not address this difficult issue. Similarly, we need not pass *284 upon petitioner's claim that private plaintiffs under Title VI must exhaust administrative remedies. We assume, only for the purposes of this case, that respondent has a right of action under Title VI. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 , 571 n. 2 (1974) (Stewart, J., concurring in result). B The language of § 601, 78 Stat. 252 , like that of the Equal Protection Clause, is majestic in its sweep : “No 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.” The concept of “discrimination,” like the phrase “equal protection of the laws,” is susceptible of varying interpretations, for as Mr. Justice Holmes declared, “[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.” Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, 425 (1918). We must, therefore, seek whatever aid is available in determining the precise meaning of the statute before us. Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U. S. 1, 10 (1976), quoting United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940). Examination of the voluminous legislative history of Title VI reveals a congressional intent to halt federal funding of entities that violate a prohibition of racial discrimination similar to that of the Constitution. Although isolated statements of various legislators, taken out of context, can be marshaled in support of the proposition that § 601 enacted a purely colorblind scheme, 19 without regard to the reach of the Equal Pro *285 tection Clause, these comments must be read against the background of both the problem that Congress was addressing and the broader view of the statute that emerges from a full examination of the legislative debates. The problem confronting Congress was discrimination against Negro citizens at the hands of recipients of federal moneys. Indeed, the color blindness pronouncements cited in the margin at n. 19, generally occur in the midst of extended remarks dealing with the evils of segregation in federally funded programs. Over and over again, proponents of the bill detailed the plight of Negroes seeking equal treatment in such programs. 20 There simply was no reason for Congress to consider the validity of hypothetical preferences that might be accorded minority citizens; the legislators were dealing with the real and pressing problem of how to guarantee those citizens equal treatment. In addressing that problem, supporters of Title VI repeatedly declared that the bill enacted constitutional principles. Tor example, Representative Celler, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and floor manager of the legislation in the House, emphasized this in introducing the bill: “The bill would offer assurance that hospitals financed by Federal money would not deny adequate care to Negroes. It would prevent abuse of food distribution programs whereby Negroes have been known to be denied food *286 surplus supplies when white persons were given such food. It would assure Negroes the benefits now accorded only-white students in programs of high[er] education financed by Federal funds. It would, in short, assure the existing right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of Federal funds. It would not destroy any rights of private property or freedom of association.” 110 Cong. Rec. 1519 (1964) (emphasis added). Other sponsors shared Representative Celler’s view that Title VI embodied constitutional principles. 21 In the Senate, Senator Humphrey declared that the purpose of Title VI was “to insure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the Nation.” Id., at 6544. Senator Ribicoff agreed that Title VI embraced the constitutional standard: “Basically, there is a constitutional restriction against discrimination in the use of federal funds; and title VI simply spells out the procedure to be used in enforcing that restriction.” Id., at 13333. Other Senators expressed similar views. 22 Further evidence of the incorporation of a constitutional standard into Title VI appears in the repeated refusals of the legislation’s supporters precisely to define the term “discrimination.” Opponents sharply criticized this failure, 23 but proponents of the bill merely replied that the meaning of *287 “discrimination” would be made clear by reference to the Constitution or other existing law. For example, Senator Humphrey noted the relevance of the Constitution: “As I have said, the bill has a simple purpose. That purpose is to give fellow citizens — Negroes — the same rights and opportunities that white people take for granted. This is no more than what was preached by the prophets, and by Christ Himself. It is no more than what our Constitution guarantees.” Id., at 6553. 24 In view of the clear legislative intent, Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment. Ill A Petitioner does not deny that decisions based on race or ethnic origin by faculties and administrations of state universities are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938); Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637 (1950). For his part, respondent does not argue that all racial or ethnic classifications are per se invalid. See, e. g., Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81 (1943); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944); Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333, 334 (1968) (Black, Harlan, and Stewart, JJ., concurring); United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977). The parties do disagree as to the level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to the special admissions program. Petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny, as this inexact term has been *288 applied in our cases. That level of review, petitioner asserts, should be reserved for classifications that disadvantage “dis.-crete and insular minorities.” See United States v. Carotene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144 , 152 n. 4 (1938). Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the California court correctly rejected the notion that the degree of judicial scrutiny accorded a particular racial or ethnic classification hinges upon membership in a discrete and insular minority and duly recognized that the “rights established [by the Fourteenth Amendment] are personal rights.” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948). En route to this crucial battle over the scope of judicial review, 25 the parties fight a sharp preliminary action over the proper characterization of the special admissions program. Petitioner prefers to view it as establishing a “goal” of minority representation in the Medical School. Respondent, echoing the courts below, labels it a racial quota. 26 *289 This semantic distinction is beside the point: The special admissions program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background. To the extent that there existed a pool of at least minimally, qualified minority applicants to fill the 16 special admissions seats, white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants. Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status. 27 The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons. Its language is explicit: “No State shall.. . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is settled beyond question that the “rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights,” Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, at 22 . Accord, Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra, at 351 ; McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, 161-162 (1914). The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when *290 applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal. Nevertheless, petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying 'strict scrutiny to the special admissions program because white males, such as respondent, are not a “discrete and insular minority” requiring extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process. Carolene Products Co., supra, at 152-153, n. 4. This rationale, however, has never been invoked in our decisions as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny. Nor has this Court held that discreteness and insularity constitute necessary preconditions to a holding that a particular classification is invidious. 28 See, e. g., Skinner v. Oklahoma ex ret. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 94-97 (1965). These characteristics may be relevant in deciding whether or not to add new types of classifications to the list of “suspect” categories or whether a particular classification survives close examination. See, e. g., Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 313 (1976) (age); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 28 (1973) (wealth); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971) (aliens). Racial and ethnic classifications, however, are subject to stringent examination without regard to these additional characteristics. We declared as much in the first cases explicitly to recognize racial distinctions as suspect: “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people *291 whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi, 320 U. S., at 100 . “[A] 11 legal restrictions'which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.” Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 216 . The Court has never questioned the validity of those pronouncements. Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination. B This perception of racial and ethnic distinctions is rooted in our Nation’s constitutional and demographic history. The Court’s initial view of the Fourteenth Amendment was that its “one pervading purpose” was “the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised dominion over him.” Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873). The Equal Protection Clause, however, was “[virtually strangled in infancy by post-civil-war judicial reaction-ism.” 29 It was relegated to decades of relative desuetude while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, after a short germinal period, flourished as a cornerstone in the Court’s defense of property and liberty of contract. See, e. g., Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661 (1887); Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578 (1897); Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). In that cause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one pervading purpose” was displaced. See, e. g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896). It was only as the era of substantive due process came to a close, see, e. g., Nebbia v. New *292 York, 291 U. S. 502 (1934); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 (1937), that the Equal Protection Clause began to attain a genuine measure of vitality, see, e. g., United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U. S. 144 (1938); Skinner v. Okla homa ex rel. Williamson, supra. By that time it was no longer possible to peg the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority. During the dormancy of the Equal Protection Clause, the United States had become a Nation of minorities. 30 Each had to struggle 31 — and to some extent struggles still 32 — to overcome the prejudices not of a monolithic majority, but of a “majority” composed of various minority groups of whom it was said — perhaps unfairly in many cases— that a shared characteristic was a willingness to disadvantage other groups. 33 As the Nation filled with the stock of many lands, the reach of the Clause was gradually extended to all ethnic groups seeking protection from official discrimination. See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 308 (1880) (Celtic Irishmen) (dictum); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886) (Chinese); Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 41 (1915) (Austrian resident aliens); Korematsu, supra (Japanese); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954) (Mexican-Americans) . The guarantees of equal protection, said the Court in *293 Yick Wo , “are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” 118 U. S., at 369 . Although many of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment conceived of its primary function as bridging the vast distance between members of the Negro race and the white “majority,” Slaughter-House Cases, supra, the Amendment itself was framed in universal terms, without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. As this Court recently remarked in interpreting the 1866 Civil Rights Act to extend to claims of racial discrimination against white persons, “the 39th Congress was intent upon establishing in the federal law a broader principle than would have been necessary simply to meet the particular and immediate plight of the newly freed Negro slaves.” McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273, 296 (1976). And that legislation was specifically broadened in 1870 to ensure that “all persons,” not merely “citizens,” would enjoy equal rights under the law. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 192-202 (1976) (White, J., dissenting). Indeed, it is not unlikely that among the Framers were many who would have applauded a reading of the Equal Protection Clause that states a principle of universal application and is responsive to the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the Nation. See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1056 (1866) (remarks of Rep. Niblack); id., at 2891-2892 (remarks of Sen. Conness) ; id., 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 883 (1868) (remarks of Sen. Howe) (Fourteenth Amendment “protect [s] classes from class legislation”). See also Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 1 , 60-63 (1955). Over the past 30 years, this Court has embarked upon the crucial mission of interpreting the Equal Protection Clause with the view of assuring to all persons “the protection of *294 equal laws,” Yick Wo, supra, at 369 , in a Nation confronting a legacy of slavery and racial discrimination. See, e. g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U. S. 284 (1976). Because the landmark decisions in this area arose in response to the continued exclusion of Negroes from the mainstream of American society, they could be characterized as involving discrimination by the “majority” white race against the Negro minority. But they need not be read as depending upon that characterization for their results. It suffices to say that “ [o] ver the years, this Court has consistently repudiated ‘[distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry’ as being ‘odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.’ ” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 11 (1967), quoting Hirabayashi, 320 U. S., at 100 . » Petitioner urges us to adopt for the first time a more restrictive view of the Equal Protection Clause and hold that discrimination against members of the white “majority” cannot be suspect if its purpose can be characterized as “benign.” 34 *295 The clock of our liberti

Me. Justice Stevens, with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. It is always important at the outset to focus precisely on the controversy before the Court. 1 It is particularly important to do so in this case because correct identification of the issues will determine whether it is necessary or appropriate to express any opinion about the legal status of any admissions program other than petitioner’s. I This is not a class action. The controversy is between two specific litigants. Allan Bakke challenged petitioner’s special admissions program, claiming that it denied him a place in medical school because of his race in violation of the Federal and California Constitutions and of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U. S. C. § 2000d et seq. The California Supreme Court upheld his challenge and ordered him admitted. If the *409 state court was correct in its view that the University’s special program was illegal, and that Bakke was therefore unlawfully excluded from the Medical School because of his race, we should affirm its judgment, regardless of our views about the legality of admissions programs that are not now before the Court. The judgment as originally entered by the trial court contained four separate paragraphs, two of which are of critical importance. 2 Paragraph 3 declared that the University’s special admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the State Constitution, and Title VI. The trial court did not order the University to admit Bakke because it concluded that Bakke had not shown that he would have been admitted if there had been no special program. Instead, in paragraph 2 of its judgment it ordered the University to consider Bakke’s application for admission without regard to his race or the race of any other applicant. The order did not include any broad *410 prohibition against any use of race in the admissions process; its terms were clearly limited to the University’s consideration of Bakke’s application. 3 Because the University has since been ordered to admit Bakke, paragraph 2 of the trial court’s order no longer has any significance. The California Supreme Court, in a holding that is not challenged, ruled that the trial court incorrectly placed the burden on Bakke of showing that he would have been admitted in the absence of discrimination. The University then conceded “that it [could] not meet the burden of proving that the special admissions program did not result in Mr. Bakke’s failure to be admitted.” 4 Accordingly, the California Supreme Court directed the trial court to enter judgment ordering Bakke’s admission. 5 Since that order superseded para *411 graph 2 of the trial court’s judgment, there is no outstanding injunction forbidding any consideration of racial criteria in processing applications. It is therefore perfectly clear that the question whether race can ever be used as a factor in an admissions decision is not an issue in this case, and that discussion of that issue is inappropriate. 6 II Both petitioner and respondent have asked us to determine the legality of the University’s special admissions program by reference to the Constitution. Our settled practice, however, is to avoid the decision of a constitutional issue if a case can be fairly decided on a statutory ground. “If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable.” Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105 . 7 The more important the issue, the more force *412 there is to this doctrine. 8 In this case, we are presented with a constitutional question of undoubted and unusual importance. Since, however, a dispositive statutory claim was raised at the very inception of this case, and squarely decided in the portion of the trial court judgment affirmed by the California Supreme Court, it is our plain duty to confront it. Only if petitioner should prevail on the statutory issue would it be necessary to decide whether the University’s admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ill Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252 , 42 U. S. C. § 2000d, provides: “No 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.” The University, through its special admissions policy, excluded Bakke from participation in its program of medical education because of his race. The University also acknowledges that it was, and still is, receiving federal financial assistance. 9 The plain language of the statute therefore requires affirmance of the judgment below. A different result *413 cannot be justified unless that language misstates the actual intent of the Congress that enacted the statute or the statute is not enforceable in a private action. Neither conclusion is warranted. Title VI is an integral part of the far-reaching Civil Rights Act of 1964. No doubt, when this legislation was being debated, Congress was not directly concerned with the legality of “reverse discrimination” or “affirmative action” programs. Its attention was focused on the problem at hand, the “glaring .. . discrimination against Negroes which exists throughout our Nation,” 10 and, with respect to Title VI, the federal funding of segregated facilities. 11 The genesis of the legislation, however, did not limit the breadth of the solution adopted. Just as Congress responded to the problem of employment discrimination by enacting a provision that protects all races, see McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 279 , 12 so, too, its answer to the problem of federal funding of segregated facilities stands as a broad prohibition against the exclusion of any individual from a federally funded program “on the ground of race.” In the words of the House Report, Title VI stands for “the general principle that no person . . . be excluded from participation ... on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th *414 Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 25 (1963) (emphasis added). This same broad view of Title VI and § 601 was echoed throughout the congressional debate and was stressed by every one of the major spokesmen for the Act. 13 Petitioner contends, however, that exclusion of applicants on the basis of race does not violate Title VI if the exclusion carries with it no racial stigma. No such qualification or limitation of § 601’s categorical prohibition of “exclusion” is justified by the statute or its history. The language of the entire section is perfectly clear; the words that follow “excluded from” do not modify or qualify the explicit outlawing of any exclusion on the stated grounds. The legislative history reinforces this reading. The only suggestion that § 601 would allow exclusion of nonminority applicants came from opponents of the legislation and then only by way of a discussion of the meaning of the word “discrimination.” 14 The opponents feared that the term “dis *415 crimination” would be read as mandating racial quotas and “racially balanced” colleges and universities, and they pressed for a specific definition of the term in order to avoid this possibility. 15 In response, the proponents of the legislation gave repeated assurances that the Act would be “colorblind” in its application. 16 Senator Humphrey, the Senate floor manager for the Act, expressed this position as follows: “[T]he word ‘discrimination’ has been used in many a court case. What it really means in the bill is a distinction in treatment . . . given to different individuals because of their different race, religion or national origin. . . . “The answer to this question [what was meant by ‘discrimination’] is that if race is not a factor, we do not have to worry about discrimination because of race. . . . The Internal Revenue Code does not provide that colored people do not have to pay taxes, or that they can pay their taxes 6 months later than everyone else.” 110 Cong. Rec. 5864 (1964). “[I]f we started to treat Americans as Americans, not as fat ones, thin ones, short ones, tall ones, brown ones, green ones, yellow ones, or white ones, but as Americans. If we did that we would not need to worry about discrimination.” Id., at 5866. *416 In giving answers such as these, it seems clear that the proponents of Title VI assumed that the Constitution itself required a colorblind standard on the part of government, 17 but that does not mean that the legislation only codifies an existing constitutional prohibition. The statutory prohibition against discrimination in federally funded projects contained in § 601 is more than a simple paraphrasing of what the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment would require. The Act’s proponents plainly considered Title VI consistent with their view of the Constitution and they sought to provide an effective weapon to implement that view. 18 As a distillation of what the supporters of the Act believed the Constitution demanded of State and Federal Governments, § 601 has independent force, with language and emphasis in addition to that found in the Constitution. 19 *417 As with other provisions of the Civil Rights Act, Congress’ expression of its policy to end racial discrimination may independently proscribe conduct that the Constitution does not. 20 However, we need not decide the congruence — or lack of congruence — of the controlling statute and the Constitution *418 since the meaning of the Title VI ban on exclusion is crystal clear: Race cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from participation in a federally funded program. In short, nothing in the legislative history justifies the conclusion that the broad language of § 601 should not be given its natural meaning. We are dealing with a distinct statutory prohibition, enacted at a particular time with particular concerns in mind; neither its language nor any prior interpretation suggests that its place in the Civil Rights Act, won after long debate, is simply that of a constitutional appendage. 21 In unmistakable terms the Act prohibits the exclusion of individuals from federally funded programs because of their race. 22 As succinctly phrased during the Senate debate, under Title VI it is not “permissible to say 'yes’ to one person; but to say ‘no’ to another person, only because of the color of his skin,” 23 Belatedly, however, petitioner argues that Title VI cannot be enforced by a private litigant. The claim is unpersuasive in the context of this case. Bakke requested injunctive and declaratory relief under Title VI; petitioner itself then joined *419 issue on the question of the legality of its program under Title VI by asking for a declaratory judgment that it was in compliance with the statute. 24 Its view during state-court litigation was that a private cause of action does exist under Title VI. Because petitioner questions the availability of a private cause of action for the first time in this Court, the question is not properly before us. See McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generate Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434 , Even if it were, petitioner’s original assumption is in accord with the federal courts’ consistent interpretation of the Act. To date, the courts, including this Court, have unanimously concluded or assumed that a private action may be maintained under Title VI. 25 The United States has taken the same position; in its amicus curiae brief directed to this specific issue, it concluded that such a remedy is clearly available, 26 *420 and Congress has repeatedly enacted legislation predicated on the assumption that Title VI may be enforced in a private action. 27 The conclusion that an individual may maintain a private cause of action is amply supported in the legislative history of Title VI itself. 28 In short, a fair consideration of *421 petitioner’s tardy attack on the propriety of Bakke’s suit under Title VI requires that it be rejected. The University’s special admissions program violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by excluding Bakke from the Medical School because of his race. It is therefore our duty to affirm the judgment ordering Bakke admitted to the University. Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s judgment insofar as it affirms the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. To the extent that it purports to do anything else, I respectfully dissent. Four Members of the Gourt have undertaken to announce the legal and constitutional effect of this Court’s judgment. See opinion of Justices BeeNNAN, White, Marshall, and BlackkuN, ante, at 324^325. It is hardly necessary to state that only a majority can speak for the Court or determine what is the “central meaning” of any judgment of the Court. The judgment first entered by the trial court read, in its entirety, as follows: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: “1. Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, have judgment against plaintiff, Allan Bakke, denying the mandatory injunction requested by plaintiff ordering his admission to the University of California at Davis Medical School; “2. That plaintiff is entitled to have his application for admission to the medical school considered without regard to his race or the race of any other applicant, and defendants are hereby restrained and enjoined from considering plaintiff’s race or the race of any other applicant in passing upon his application for admission; “3. Cross-defendant Allan Bakke have judgment against cross-complainant, the Regents of the University of California, declaring that the special admissions program at the University of California at Davis Medical School violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 21 of the California Constitution, and the Federal Civil Rights Act [42 U. S. C. § 2000d] ; “4. That plaintiff have and recover his court costs incurred herein in the sum of $217.35.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 120a. In paragraph 2 the trial court ordered that “plaintiff [Baldee] is entitled to have his application for admission to the medical school considered without regard to his race or the race of any other applicant, and defendants are hereby restrained and enjoined from considering plaintiff’s race or the race of any other applicant in passing upon his application for admission.” See n. 2, supra (emphasis added). The only way in which this order can be broadly read as prohibiting any use of race in the admissions process, apart from Bakke’s application, is if the final “his” refers to “any other applicant.” But the consistent use of the pronoun throughout the paragraph to refer to Bakke makes such a reading entirely unpersuasive, as does the failure of the trial court to suggest that it was issuing relief to applicants who were not parties to the suit. Appendix B to Application for Stay A19-A20. 18 Cal. 3d 34, 64 , 553 P. 2d 1152, 1172 (1976). The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of California affirms only paragraph 3 of the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s judgment reads as follows: “IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment of the Superior Court[,] County of Yolo[,] in the above-entitled cause, is hereby affirmed insofar as it determines that the special admission program is invalid; the judgment is reversed insofar as it denies Bakke an injunction ordering that he be admitted to the University, and the trial court is directed to enter judgment ordering Bakke to be admitted. “Bakke shall recover his costs on these appeals.” “This Court . . . reviews judgments, not statements in opinions.” Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U. S. 292, 297 . “From Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 , to Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co. [, 329 U. S. 129 ,] and the Hatch Act case United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 ] decided this term, this Court has followed a policy of strict necessity in disposing of constitutional issues. The earliest exemplifications, too well known for repeating the history here, arose in the Court’s refusal to render advisory opinions and in applications of the related jurisdictional policy drawn from the case and controversy limitation. U. S. Const., Art. III. . . . “The policy, however, has not been limited to jurisdictional determinations. For, in addition, ‘the Court [has] developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.’ Thus, as those rules were fisted in support of the statement quoted, constitutional issues affecting legislation will not be determined in friendly, nonadversary proceedings; in advance of the necessity of deciding them; in broader terms than are required by the precise facts to which the ruling is to be applied; if the record presents *412 some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of; at the instance of one who fails to show that he is injured by the statute’s operation, or who has availed himself of its benefits; or if a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568-569 (footnotes omitted). See also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (Brandéis, J., concurring). The doctrine reflects both our respect for the Constitution as an enduring set of principles and the deference we owe to the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government in developing solutions to complex social problems. See A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 131 (1962). Record 29. H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 18 (1963). It is apparent from the legislative history that the immediate object of Title VT was to prevent federal funding of segregated facilities. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 1521 (1964) (remarks of Rep. Celler); id., at 6544 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., the Court held that “Title VII prohibits racial discrimination against . . . white petitioners . . . upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes . . . .” 427 U. S., at 280 . Quoting from our earlier decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 431 , the Court reaffirmed the principle that the statute “prohibit [s] ‘[d]iscriminatory preference for any [racial] group, minority or majority.’ ” 427 U. S., at 279 (emphasis in original). See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 1520 (1964) (remarks of Rep. Celler); id., at 5864 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey); id., at 6561 (remarks of Sen. Kuehel); id., at 7055 (remarks of Sen. Pastare). (Representative Celler and Senators Humphrey and Kuehel were the House and Senate floor managers for the entire Civil Rights Act, and Senator Pastore was the majority Senate floor manager for Title VI.) Representative Abernethy’s comments were typical: “Title VI has been aptly described as the most harsh and unprecedented proposal contained in the bill.... “It is aimed toward eliminating discrimination in federally assisted programs. It contains no guideposts and no yardsticks as to what might constitute discrimination in carrying out federally aided programs and projects. . . . “Presumably the college would have to have a 'racially balanced’ staff from the dean’s office to the cafeteria. . .. “The effect of this title, if enacted into law, will interject race as a factor in every decision involving the selection of an individual .... The concept of 'racial imbalance’ would hover like a black cloud over every transaction . . . .” Id., at 1619. See also, e. g., id., at 5611-5613 (remarks of Sen. Ervin); id., at 9083 (remarks of Sen. Gore). E. g., id., at 5863, 5874 (remarks of Sen. Eastland). See, e. g., id., at 8346 (remarks of Sen. Proxmire) (“Taxes are collected from whites and Negroes, and they should be expended without discrimination”); id., at 7055 (remarks of Sen. Pastore) (“[Title VI] will guarantee that the money collected by colorblind tax collectors will be distributed by Federal and State administrators who are equally colorblind”); and id., at 6543 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey) (“ ‘Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination’”) (quoting from President Kennedy’s Message to Congress, June 19,1963).. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 5253 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey); and id., at 7102 (remarks of Sen. Javits). The parallel between the prohibitions of Title VI and those of the Constitution was clearest with respect to the immediate goal of the Act — an end to federal funding of “separate but equal” facilities. “As in Monroe [v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 ], we have no occasion here to ‘reach the constitutional question whether Congress has the power to make municipalities liable for acts of its officers that violate the civil rights of individuals.’ 365 U. S., at'191. For in interpreting the statute it is not our task to consider whether Congress was mistaken in 1871 in its view of the limits of its power over municipalities; rather, we must construe the statute in light of the impressions under which Congress did in fact act, see Ries v. Lynskey, 452 F. 2d, at 175.” Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 709 . Both Title VI and Title VII express Congress’ belief that, in the long struggle to eliminate social prejudice and the effects of prejudice, the principle of individual equality, without regard to race or religion, was one on which there could be a “meeting of the minds” among all races and a common national purpose. See Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 709 (“[T]he basic policy of the statute [Title VII] requires that we focus on fairness to individuals rather than fairness *417 to classes”). This same principle of individual fairness is embodied in Title VI. “The basic fairness of title VI is so clear that I find it difficult to understand why it should create any opposition. . . . “Private prejudices, to be sure, cannot be eliminated overnight. However, there is one area where no room at all exists for private prejudices. That is the area of governmental conduct. As the first Mr. Justice Harlan said in his prophetic dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 , 559: “ ‘Our Constitution is color-blind.’ “So — I say to Senators — must be our Government. . . . “Title VI closes the gap between our purposes as a democracy and our prejudices as individuals. The cuts of prejudice need healing. The costs of prejudice need understanding. We cannot have hostility between two great parts of our people without tragic loss in our human values .... “Title VI offers a place for the meeting of our minds as to Federal money.” 110 Cong. Rec. 7063-7064 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Pastore). Of course, one of the reasons marshaled in support of the conclusion that Title VI was “noncontroversial” was that its prohibition was already reflected in the law. See ibid, (remarks of Sen. Pell and Sen. Pastore). For example, private employers now under duties imposed by Title VII were wholly free from the restraints imposed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which are directed only to governmental action. In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 , the Government’s brief stressed that “the applicability of Title VI . . . does not depend upon the outcome of the equal protection analysis. . . . [T]he statute independently proscribes the conduct challenged by petitioners and provides a discrete basis for injunctive relief.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae, O. T. 1973, No. 72-6520, p. 15. The Court, in turn, rested its decision on Title VI. Me. Justice Powell takes pains to distinguish Lau from the case at hand because the Lau decision “rested solely on the statute.” Ante, at 304. See also Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 238-239 ; Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 588 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting). As explained by' Senator Humphrey, § 601 expresses a principle imbedded in the constitutional and- moral understanding of the times. “The purpose of title VI is to make sure that funds of the United States are not used to support racial discrimination. In many instances the practices of segregation or discrimination, which title VI seeks to end, are unconstitutional. ... In all cases, such discrimination is contrary to national policy, and to the moral sense of the Nation. Thus, title VI is simply designed to insure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the Nation.” 110 Cong. Rec. 6544 (1964) (emphasis added). Petitioner’s attempt to rely on regulations issued by HEW for a contrary reading of the statute is unpersuasive. Where no discriminatory policy was in effect, HEW’s example of permissible “affirmative action” refers to “special recruitment policies.” 45 CFR § 80.5 (j) (1977). This regulation, which was adopted in 1973, sheds no light on the legality of the admissions program that excluded Bakke in this case. 110 Cong. Rec. 6047 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Pastore). Record 30-31. See, e. g., Lau v. Nichols, supra; Bossier Parish School Board v. Lemon, 370 F. 2d 847 (CA5 1967), cert. denied, 388 U. S. 911 ; Uzzell v. Friday, 547 F. 2d 801 (CA4 1977), opinion on rehearing en banc, 558 F. 2d 727 , cert. pending, No. 77-635; Serna v. Portales, 499 F. 2d 1147 (CA10 1974); cf. Chambers v. Omaha Public School District, 536 F. 2d 222 , 225 n. 2 (CA8 1976) (indicating doubt over whether a money judgment can be obtained under Title VI). Indeed, the Government’s brief in Lau v. Nichols, supra, succinctly expressed this common assumption: “It is settled that petitioners . . . have standing to enforce Section 601 . . . .” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Lau v. Nichols , O. T. 1973, No. 72-6520, p. 13 n. 5. Supplemental Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24-34. The Government’s supplemental brief also suggests that there may be a difference between a private cause of action brought to end a particular discriminatory practice and such an action brought to cut off federal funds. Id., at 28-30. Section 601 is specifically addressed to personal rights, while § 602 — the fund cutoff provision — establishes “an elaborate mechanism for governmental enforcement by federal agencies.” Supplemental Brief, supra, at 28 (emphasis added). Arguably, private enforcement of this “elaborate mechanism” would not fit within the congressional scheme, see separate opinion of Mr. Justice White, ante, at 380-383. But Bakke did not seek to cut off the University’s federal funding; he sought admission *420 to medical school. The difference between these two courses of action is clear and significant. As the Government itself states: “[T]he grant of an injunction or a declaratory judgment in a private action would not be inconsistent with the administrative program established by Section 602 .... A declaratory judgment or injunction against future discrimination would not raise the possibility that funds ..would be terminated, and it would not involve bringing the forces of the Executive Branch to bear on state programs; it therefore would not implicate the concern that led to the limitations contained in Section 602.” Supplemental Brief, supra, at 30 n. 25. The notion that a private action seeking injunctive or declaratory judgment relief is inconsistent with a federal statute that authorizes termination of funds has clearly been rejected by this Court in prior cases. See Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 420 . See 29 U. S. C. § 794 (1976 ed.) (the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (in particular, the legislative history discussed in Lloyd v. Regional Transportation Authority, 548 F. 2d 1277, 1285-1286 (CA7 1977)); 20 U. S. C. § 1617 (1976 ed.) (attorney fees under the Emergency School Aid Act); and 31 U. S. C. § 1244 (1976 ed.) (private action under the Financial Assistance Act). Of course, none of these subsequent legislative enactments is necessarily reliable evidence of Congress’ intent in 1964 in enacting Title VI, and the legislation was not intended to change the existing status of Title VI. Framing the analysis in terms of the four-part Cort v. Ash test, see 422 U. S. 66, 78 , it is clear that all four parts of the test are satisfied. (1) Balcke’s status as a potential beneficiary of a federally funded program definitely brings him within the “ ‘class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,’ ” ibid, (emphasis in original). (2) A cause of action based on race discrimination has not been “traditionally relegated to state law.” Ibid. (3) While a few excerpts from the voluminous legislative history suggest that Congress did not intend to create a private cause of action, see opinion of Mr. Justice Powell, ante, at 283 n. 18, an examination of the entire legislative history makes it clear that Congress had no intention to foreclose a private right of action. (4) There is ample evidence that Congress considered private causes of action to be consistent *421 with, if not essential to, the legislative scheme. See, e. g., remarks of Senator Ribicoff: “We come then to the crux of the dispute — how this right [to participate in federally funded programs without discrimination] should be protected. And even this issue becomes clear upon the most elementary analysis. If Federal funds are to be dispensed on a nondiscriminatory basis, the only possible remedies must fall into one of two categories: First, action to end discrimination; or second, action to end the payment of funds. Obviously action to end discrimination is preferable since that reaches the objective of extending the funds on a nondiscriminatory basis. But if the discrimination persists and cannot be effectively terminated, how else can. the principle of nondiscrimination be vindicated except by nonpayment of funds?” 110 Cong. Rec. 7065 (1964). See also id., at 5090, 6543, 6544 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey); id., at 7103, 12719 (remarks of Sen. Ja.vits); id., at 7062, 7063 (remarks of Sen. Pastore). The congressional debates thus show a clear understanding that the principle embodied in § 601 involves personal federal rights that administrative procedures would not, for the most part, be able to protect. The analogy to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), is clear. Both that Act and Title VI are broadly phrased in terms of personal rights (“no person shall be denied . . .”) ; both Acts were drafted with broad remedial purposes in mind; and the effectiveness of both Acts would be “severely hampered” without the existence of a private remedy to supplement administrative procedures. See Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 556 . In Allen , of course, this Court found a private right of action under the Voting Rights Act.