opinion: UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC v. WEBER et al.
  No. 78-432.
  Argued March 28, 1979
  Decided June 27, 1979
  Brennan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stewart, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, 209. Burger, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 216. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 219. PowELÉ and Stevens, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
  Michael H. Oottesman argued the cause for petitioner in No. 78-432. With him on the briefs were Robert M. Weinberg, Elliot Bredhoff, Bernard Kleiman, Carl Frankel, Jerome A. Cooper, John C. Falkenberry, J. Albert Woll, and Laurence Gold. Thompson Powers argued the cause for petitioner in No. 78-435. With him on the briefs was Jane McGrew. Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States et al., petitioners in No. 78-436. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, William C. Bryson, Brian K. Landsberg, and Robert J. Reinstein.
  Michael R. Fontham argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Weber in all cases.
  Together with No. 78-435, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Weber et al., and No. 78-436, United States et al. v. Weber et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in all cases were filed by Arthur Kinoy and Doris Peterson for the Affirmative Action Coordinating Center et al.; by E. Richard Larson, Burt Neuborne, and Frank Askin for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; by Richard B. Sobol, Jerome Cohen, Harrison Combs, John Fillion, Winn Newman, Carole W. Wilson, David Rubin, John Tadlock, James E. Youngdahl, A. L. Zwerdling, and Janet Kohn for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al.; by Samuel Yee, Charles Stephen Ralston, and Bill Lann Lee for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund et al.; by James F. Miller and Stephen V. Bomse for the California Fair Employment Practice Commission et al.; by Charles A. Bane, Thomas D. Barr, Norman Redlich, Robert A. Murphy, Richard T. Seymour, Norman J. Chachkin, and Richard S. Kohn for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; by Nathaniel R. Jones for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; by Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Eric Schnapper, Lowell Johnston, Barry L. Goldstein, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Wiley A. Branton for the N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al.; by Herbert 0. Reid and John W. Davis for the National Medical Association, Inc., et al.; by Robert Her-mann and Evan A. Davis for the National Puerto Rican Coalition et al.; by Jerome Tauber for the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO; and by Eileen M. Stein and Pat Eames for Patricia Schroeder et ál. Sybille C. Fritzsche filed a brief for the Women’s Caucus, District 31 of the United Steelworkers of America, as amicus curiae in No. 78-432 urging reversal.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in all cases were filed by J. D. Burdick and Ronald E. Yank for the California Correctional Officers Association; by Gerard C. Smetana for the Government Contract Employers Association; by Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley for the Pacific Legal Foundation; by Leonard F. Walentynowicz for the Polish American Congress et al; and by Wayne T. Elliott for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. Jack N. Rogers filed a brief for the United States Justice Foundation as amicus curiae in No. 78-432 urging affirmance.
  Briefs of amici curiae in all cases were filed by Vilma S. Martinez, Morris J. Bailer, and Joel G. Contreras for the American G. I. Forum et al.; by Philip B. Kurland, Larry M. Lavinsky, Arnold Forster, Harry J. Keaton, Meyer Eisenberg, Justin J. Finger, Jeffrey P. Sinensky, Richard A. Weisz, Themis N. Anastos, Dennis Rapps, and Julian E. Kulas for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith et al.; by John W. Finley, Jr., Michael' Blinick, Deyan R. Brashich, and Eugene V. Rostov) for the Committee on Academic Nondiscrimination and Integrity; by Kenneth C. McGuiness, Robert E. Williams, and Douglas S. McDowell for the Equal Employment Advisory Council; by Mark B. Bigelow for the National Coordinating Committee for Trade Union Action and Democracy; by Philips B. Patton for the Pacific Civil Liberties League; by Frank J. Donner for the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America; by Paul D. Kamenar for the Washington Legal Foundation; and by Gloria R. Allred for the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund. Burt Pines and Cecil W. Marr filed a brief for the city of Los Angeles as amicus curiae in No. 78-435.
  Mr. Justice Brennan
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  Challenged here is the legality of an affirmative action plan- — collectively bargained by an employer and a union— that reserves for black employees 50% of the openings in an in-plant craft-training program until the percentage of black craftworkers in the plant is commensurate with the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. The question for decision is whether Congress, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., left employers and unions in the private sector free to take such race-conscious steps to eliminate manifest racial imbalances in traditionally segregated job categories. We hold that Title VII does not prohibit such race-conscious affirmative action plans.
  I
  In 1974, petitioner United Steelworkers of America (USWA) and petitioner Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (Kaiser) entered into a master collective-bargaining agreement covering terms and conditions of employment at 15 Kaiser plants. The agreement contained, inter alia, an affirmative action plan designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalances in Kaiser’s then almost exclusively white craftwork forces. Black craft-hiring goals were set for each Kaiser plant equal to the percentage of blacks in the respective local labor forces. To enable plants to meet these goals, on-the-job training programs were established to teach unskilled production workers — black and white — -the skills necessary to become craft-workers. The plan reserved for black employees 50% of the openings in these newly created in-plant training programs.
  This case arose from the operation of the plan at Kaiser’s plant in Gramercy, La. Until 1974, Kaiser hired as craft-workers for that plant only persons who had had prior craft experience. Because blacks had long been excluded from craft unions, few were able to present such credentials. As a consequence, prior to 1974 only 1.83% (5 out of 273) of the skilled craftworkers at the Gramercy plant were black, even though the work force in the Gramercy area was approximately 39% black.
  Pursuant to the national agreement Kaiser altered its craft-hiring practice in the Gramercy plant. Rather than hiring already trained outsiders, Kaiser established a training program to train its production workers to fill craft openings. Selection of craft trainees was made on the basis of seniority, with the proviso that at least 50% of the new trainees were to be black until the percentage of black skilled craftworkers in the Gramercy plant approximated the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. See 415 F. Supp. 761, 764.
  During 1974, the first year of the operation of the Kaiser-USWA affirmative action plan, 13 craft trainees were selected from Gramercy’s production work force. Of these, seven were black and six white. The most senior black selected into the program had less seniority than several white production workers whose bids for admission were, rejected. Thereafter one of those white production workers, respondent Brian Weber (hereafter respondent), instituted this class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
  The complaint alleged that the filling of craft trainee positions at the Gramercy plant pursuant to the affirmative action program had resulted in junior black employees’ receiving training in preference to senior white employees, thus discriminating against respondent and other similarly situated white employees in violation of §§703 (a) and (d) of Title VII. The District Court held that the plan violated Title VII, entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff class, and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting Kaiser and the USWA “from denying plaintiffs, Brian F. Weber and all other members of the class, access to on-the-job training programs on the basis of race.” App.171. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that all employment preferences based upon race, including those preferences incidental to bona fide affirmative action plans, violated Title VII's prohibition against racial discrimination in employment. 563 F. 2d 216 (1977). We granted certiorari. 439 U. S. 1045 (1978). We reverse.
  II
  We emphasize at the outset the narrowness of our inquiry. Since the Kaiser-USWA plan does not involve state action, this case does not present an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, since the Kaiser-USWA plan was adopted voluntarily, we are not concerned with what Title VII requires or with what a court might order to remedy a past proved violation of the Act. The only question before us is the narrow statutory issue of whether Title VII forbids private employers and unions from voluntarily agreeing upon bona fide affirmative action plans that accord racial preferences in the manner and for the purpose provided in the Kaiser-USWA plan. That question was expressly left open in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 281 n. 8 (1976), which held, in a case not involving affirmative action, that Title YII protects whites as well as blacks from certain forms of racial discrimination.
  Respondent argues that Congress intended in Title VII to prohibit all race-conscious affirmative action plans. Respondent’s argument rests upon a literal interpretation of §§ 703 (a) and (d) of the Act. Those sections make it unlawful to “discriminate . . . because of . . . race” in hiring and in the selection of apprentices for- training programs. Since, the argument runs, McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., supra, settled that Title YII forbids discrimination against whites as well as blacks, and since the Kaiser-USWA affirmative action plan operates to discriminate against white employees solely because they are white, it follows that the Kaiser-USWA plan violates Title VII.
  Respondent’s argument is not without force. But it overlooks the significance of the fact that the Kaiser-USWA plan is an affirmative action plan voluntarily adopted by private parties to eliminate traditional patterns of racial segregation. In this context respondent’s reliance upon a literal construction of §§ 703 (a) and (d) and upon McDonald is misplaced. See McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., supra, at 281 n. 8. It is a “familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.” Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 459 (1892). The prohibition against racial discrimination in §§ 703 (a) and (d) of Title VII must therefore be read against the background of the legislative history of Title VII and the historical context from which the Act arose. See Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U. S. 1, 10 (1976); National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 620 (1967); United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940). Examination of those sources makes clear that an interpretation of the sections that forbade all race-conscious affirmative action would “bring about an end completely at variance with the purpose of the statute” and must be rejected. United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 345 U. S. 295, 315 (1953). See Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427, 431 (1952); Longshoremen v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U. S. 237, 243 (1952); Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426 (1907).
  Congress’ primary concern in enacting the prohibition against racial discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was with “the plight of the Negro in our economy.” 110 Cong. Rec. 6548 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey) . Before 1964, blacks were largely relegated to “unskilled and semi-skilled jobs.” Ibid, (remarks of Sen. Humphrey); id., at 7204 (remarks of Sen. Clark); id., at 7379-7380 (remarks of Sen. Kennedy). Because of automation the number of such jobs was rapidly decreasing. See id., at 6548 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey); id., at 7204 (remarks of Sen. Clark). As a consequence, “the relative position of the Negro worker [was] steadily worsening. In 1947 the nonwhite unemployment rate was only 64 percent higher than the white rate; in 1962 it was 124 percent higher.” Id., at 6547 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). See also id., at 7204 (remarks of Sen. Clark). Congress considered this a serious social problem. As Senator Clark told the Senate:
  “The rate of Negro unemployment has gone up consistently as compared with white unemployment for the past 15 years. This is a social malaise and a social situation which we should not tolerate. That is one of the principal reasons why the bill should pass.” Id., at 7220.
  Congress feared that the goals of the Civil Rights Act— the integration of blacks into the mainstream of American society — could not be achieved unless this trend were reversed. And Congress recognized that that would not be possible unless blacks were able to secure jobs “which have a future.” Id., at 7204 (remarks of Sen. Clark). See also id., at 7379-7380 (remarks of Sen. Kennedy). As Senator Humphrey explained to the Senate:
  “What good does it do a Negro to be able to eat in a fine restaurant if he cannot afford to pay the bill? What good does it do him to be accepted in a hotel that is too expensive for his modest income? How can a Negro child be motivated to take full advantage of integrated educational facilities if he has no hope of getting a job where he can use that education?” Id., at 6547.
  “Without a job, one cannot afford public convenience and accommodations. Income from employment may be necessary to further a man’s education, or that of his children. If his children have no hope of getting a good job, what will motivate them to take advantage of educational opportunities?” Id., at 6552.
  These remarks echoed President Kennedy’s original message to Congress upon the introduction of the Civil Rights Act in 1963.
  “There is little value in a Negro’s obtaining the right to be admitted to hotels and restaurants if he has no cash in his pocket and no job.” 109 Cong. Rec. 11159.
  Accordingly, it was clear to Congress that “[t]he crux of the problem [was] to open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them,” 110 Cong. Rec. 6548 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey), and it was to this problem that Title'VII’s prohibition against racial discrimination in employment was primarily addressed.
  It plainly appears from the House Report accompanying the Civil Rights Act that Congress did not intend wholly to prohibit private and voluntary affirmative action efforts as one method of solving this problem. The Report provides:
  “No bill can or should lay claim to eliminating all of the causes and consequences of racial and other types of discrimination against minorities. There is reason to believe, however, that national leadership provided by the enactment of Federal legislation dealing with the most troublesome problems will create an atmosphere conducive to voluntary or local resolution of other forms of discrimination." H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 18 (1963). (Emphasis supplied.)
  Given this legislative history, we cannot agree with respondent that Congress intended to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps to accomplish the goal that Congress designed Title VII to achieve. The very statutory words intended as a spur or catalyst to cause “employers and unions to self-examine and to self-evaluate their employment practices and to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges of an unfortunate and ignominious page in this country's history,” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 418 (1975), cannot be interpreted as an absolute prohibition against all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action efforts to hasten the elimination of such vestiges. It would be ironic indeed if a law triggered by a Nation's concern over centuries of racial injustice and intended to improve the lot of those who had “been excluded from the American dream for so long,” 110 Cong. Rec. 6552 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey), constituted the first legislative prohibition of all voluntary, private, race-conscious efforts to abolish traditional patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy.
  Our conclusion is further reinforced by examination of the language and legislative history of § 703 (j) of Title VII. Opponents of Title VII raised two related arguments against the bill. First, they argued that the Act would be interpreted to require employers with racially imbalanced work forces to grant preferential treatment to racial minorities in order to integrate. Second, they argued that employers with racially imbalanced work forces would grant preferential treatment to racial minorities, even if not required to do so by the Act. See 110 Cong. Rec. 8618-8619 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Sparkman). Had Congress meant to prohibit all race-conscious affirmative action, as respondent urges, it easily could have answered both objections by providing that Title VII would not require or permit racially preferential integration efforts. But Congress did not choose such a course. Rather, Congress added § 703 (j) which addresses only the first objection. The section provides that nothing contained in Title VII “shall be interpreted to require any employer ... to grant preferential treatment... to any group because of the race ... of such . . . group on account of” a de jacto racial imbalance in the employer’s work force. The section does not state that “nothing in Title VII shall be interpreted to permit” voluntary affirmative efforts to correct racial imbalances. The natural inference is that Congress chose not to forbid all voluntary race-conscious affirmative action.
  The reasons for this choice are evident from the legislative record. Title VII could not have been enacted into law without substantial support from legislators in both Houses who traditionally resisted federal regulation of private business. Those legislators demanded as a price for their support that “management prerogatives, and union freedoms ... be left undisturbed to the greatest extent possible.” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 29 (1963). Section 703 (j) was proposed by Senator Dirksen to allay any fears that the Act might be interpreted in such a way as to upset this compromise. The section was designed to prevent § 703 of Title VII from being interpreted in such a way as to lead to undue “Federal Government interference with private businesses because of some Federal employee’s ideas about racial balance or racial imbalance.” 110 Cong. Rec. 14314 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Miller). See also id., at 9881 (remarks of Sen. Allott); id., at 10520 (remarks of Sen. Carlson); id., at 11471 (remarks of Sen. Javits); id., at 12817 (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). Clearly, a prohibition against all voluntary, race-conscious, affirmative action efforts would disserve these ends. Such a prohibition would augment the powers of the Federal Government and diminish traditional management prerogatives while at the same time impeding attainment of the ultimate statutory goals. In view of this legislative history and in view of Congress’ desire to avoid undue federal regulation of private businesses, use of the word “require” rather than the phrase “require or permit” in § 703 (j) fortifies the conclusion that Congress did not intend to limit traditional business freedom to such a degree as to prohibit all voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action.
  We therefore hold that Title VIPs prohibition in §§ 703 (a) and (d) against racial discrimination does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans.
  Ill
  We need not today define in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible affirmative action plans. It suffices to hold that the challenged Kaiser-USWA affirmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were-structured to “open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them.” 110 Cong. Rec. 6548 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey).
  At the same time, the plan does not unnecessarily trammel the interests of the white employees. The plan does not require the discharge of white workers and their replacement with new black hirees. Cf. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273 (1976). Nor does the plan create an absolute bar to the advancement of white employees; half of those trained in the program will be white. Moreover, the plan is a temporary measure; it is not intended to maintain racial balance, but simply to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance. Preferential selection of craft trainees at the Gramercy plant will end as soon as the percentage of black skilled craftworkers in the Gramercy plant approximates the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. See 415 F. Supp., at 763.
  We conclude, therefore, that the adoption of the Kaiser-USWA plan for the Gramercy plant falls within the area of discretion left by Title VII to the private sector voluntarily to adopt affirmative action plans designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is
  Reversed.
  Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
  Judicial findings of exclusion from crafts on racial grounds are so numerous as to make such exclusion a proper subject for judicial notice. See, e. g., United States v. Elevator Constructors, 538 F. 2d 1012 (CA3 1976); Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts v. Altschuler, 490 F. 2d 9 (CA1 1973); Southern Illinois Builders Assn. v. Ogilvie, 471 F. 2d 680 (CA7 1972); Contractors Assn, of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor, 442 F. 2d 159 (CA3 1971); Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F. 2d 1047 (CA5 1969); Buckner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 339 F. Supp. 1108 (ND Ala. 1972), aff’d without opinion, 476 F. 2d 1287 (CA5 1973). See also U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Challenge Ahead: Equal Opportunity in Referral Unions 58-94 (1976) (summarizing judicial findings of discrimination by craft unions) ; G. Myrdal, An American Dilemma 1079-1124 (1944); F. Marshall & V. Briggs, The Negro and Apprenticeship (1967); S. Spero & A. Harris, The Black Worker (1931); U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Employment 97 (1961); State Advisory Committees, U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 50 States Report 209 (1961); Marshall, The Negro in Southern Unions, in The Negro and the American Labor Movement 145 (J. Jacobson ed. 1968); App. 63, 104.
  Section 703 (a), 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 86 Stat. 109, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a), provides:
  “(a) ... It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
  “(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.''
  Section 703 (d), 78 Stat. 256, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (d), provides:
  “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.''
  The problem that Congress addressed in 1964 remains with us. In 1962, the nonwhite unemployment rate was 124% higher than the white rate. See 110 Cong. Rec. 6547 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). In 1978, the black unemployment rate was 129% higher. See Monthly Labor Review, U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 78 (Mar. 1979).
  Section 703 (j) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 257, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2 (j), provides:
  “Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religiofi sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.”
  Section 703 (j) speaks to substantive liability under Title VII, but it does not preclude courts from considering racial imbalance as evidence of a Title VII violation. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 339-340, n. 20 (1977). Remedies for substantive violations are governed by § 706 (g), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (g).
  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, considered in University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978), contains no provision comparable to §703 (j). This is because Title VI was an exercise of federal power over a matter in which the Federal Government was already directly involved: the prohibitions against race-based conduct contained in Title VI governed “program[s] or activities] receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000d. Congress was legislating to assure federal funds would not be used in an improper manner. Title VII, by contrast, was enacted pursuant to the commerce power to regulate purely private decisionmaking and was not intended to incorporate and particularize the commands of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Title VII and Title VI, therefore, cannot be read in pari materia. See 110 Cong. Rec. 8315 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Cooper). See also id., at 11615 (remarks of Sen. Cooper).
  Respondent argues that our construction of § 703 conflicts with various remarks in the legislative record. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7213 (1964) (Sens. Clark and Case); id., at 7218 (Sens. Clark and Case); id., at 6549 (Sen. Humphrey); id., at 8921 (Sen. Williams). We do not agree. In Senator Humphrey’s words, these comments were intended as assurances that Title VII would not allow establishment of systems “to maintain racial balance in employment.” Id., at 11848 (emphasis added). They were not addressed to temporary, voluntary, affirmative action measures undertaken to eliminate manifest racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories. Moreover, the comments referred to by respondent all preceded the adoption of §703 (j), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (j). After § 703 (j) was adopted, congressional comments were all to the effect that employers would not be required to institute preferential quotas to avoid Title VII liability, see, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 12819 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Dirksen); id., at 13079-13080 (remarks of Sen. Clark); id., at 15876 (remarks of Rep. Lindsay). There was no suggestion after the adoption of § 703 (j) that wholly voluntary, race-conscious, affirmative action efforts would in themselves constitute a violation of Title VII. On the contrary, as Representative MacGregor told the House shortly before the final vote on Title VII:
  “Important as the scope and extent of this bill is, it is also vitally important that all Americans understand what this bill does not cover.
  “Your mail and mine, your contacts and mine with our constituents, indicates a great degree of misunderstanding about this bill. People complain about . . . preferential treatment or quotas in employment. There is a mistaken belief that Congress is legislating in these areas in this bill. When we drafted this bill we excluded these issues largely because the problems raised by these controversial questions are more properly handled at a governmental level closer to the American people and by communities and individuals themselves.” 110 Cong. Rec. 15893 (1964).
  See n. 1, supra. This is not to suggest that the freedom of an employer to undertake race-conscious affirmative action efforts depends on whether or not his effort is motivated by fear of liability under Title VII.
  Our disposition makes unnecessary consideration of petitioners’ argument that their plan was justified because they feared that black employees would bring suit under Title VII if they did not adopt an affirmative action plan. Nor need we consider petitioners’ contention that their affirmative action plan represented an attempt -to comply with Exec. Order No. 11246, 3 CFR 339 (1964-1965 Comp.).