In a separate opinion, Justices William Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun agreed that the result should permit some forms of race-conscious admissions and concurred in part with Justice Powell’s conclusion that Title VI’s scope equals that of the Equal Protection Clause. However, the Justices argued that proper remedial purposes, such as remedying the effects of past discrimination, justify the use of race as an admissions factor, whether or not the university itself was proven to have discriminated previously. They wrote, “Government may take race into account when it acts not to demean or insult any racial group, but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice...”

The Justices asserted that Bakke’s injury, as a white person denied entry in a remedial program, was not “comparable to that imposed upon racial minorities by exclusion or separation on grounds of race,” and that the University’s special admissions program was a permissible effort to bring underrepresented groups into public institutions. They stated, “[i]n order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot—we dare not—let the Equal Protection Clause perpetuate racial supremacy.”

In a brief opinion, Justice Byron White separately addressed the existence of a private cause of action under Title VI, arguing that a private cause of action was not intended by Congress and that the administrative remedies spelled out in the statute should have been followed. However, he ultimately joined the plurality’s reasoning in agreeing that Bakke should be admitted.

In a brief opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun stressed the ongoing need for affirmative action as a means of remedying historical discrimination and moving toward a society where such measures would no longer be needed. He explained, “[a]t least until the early 1970’s, apparently only a very small number, less than 2%, of the physicians, attorneys, and medical and law students in the United States were members of what we now refer to as minority groups. If ways are not found to remedy that situation, the country can never achieve its professed goal of a society that is not race conscious.”

In a separate opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens emphasized the narrow scope of the case. Stevens contended the sole question was whether the University of California’s special admissions program violated federal law, specifically Title VI, since the statute plainly forbade “exclusion” from federally funded programs on the basis of race. He explained that, “[r]ace cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from participation in a federally funded program.” Noting the clear statutory violation, Stevens saw no need to address the constitutional question, stating that “[i]f the 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.” Stevens concluded that the judgment ordering Bakke’s admission should be affirmed as a straightforward application of the statutory law, but declined to offer any broader judgment about the constitutionality of other race-conscious admissions programs.