In two decisions, the court underscored that racial quotas are unconstitutional but left room for the nation's public universities ­ and by extension other public and private institutions ­ to seek ways to take race into account.

The court preserved the rules outlined a generation ago in a landmark ruling that struck down quotas but allowed subtler forms of affirmative action. Today's rulings mean that race-conscious policies in place in institutions as diverse as military academies and women's studies courses will probably remain in force.

At the University of Hawai'i, officials expressed cautious optimism today that the limited affirmative action programs at the campuses will continue unchanged as a result of the decision. Amy Agbayani, director of the UH Student Equity, Excellence and Diversity Office, said these include programs to enhance law- and medical-school admissions of Native Hawaiians and other minorities that are underrepresented in the student population.

These programs, as well as a systemwide outreach program aimed at tutoring and mentoring the same minorities, appear to pass muster because they also consider financial need as a factor and because they prepare students for admission rather than admit them outright, said Alan Yang, dean of students.

Writing for the majority in the 5-4 ruling upholding an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan's law school, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the value of diverse classrooms extends far beyond the campus.

"This court has long recognized that 'education is the very foundation of good citizenship,' " O'Connor wrote, quoting from the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling of nearly 50 years ago.

"For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity," O'Connor wrote. "Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized."

At the same time, the high court voted 6-3 to strike down a separate point system used by the University of Michigan's undergraduate school.

Peter Englert, chancellor of the UH-Manoa campus, said today that university attorneys are reviewing the hefty legal documents before breathing a collective sigh of relief, although he said it appears today that tuition waivers for Native Hawaiians will be unaffected by the ruling.

But he did take encouragement from O'Connor's statements about the need for "effective participation" of all groups.

"This is what I'm subscribing to as well," Englert said. "Improved access to Native Hawaiians and other groups, that commitment is unwavering."

Yang acknowledged that the justices seem to have "split the baby" by rejecting the undergraduate point system at Michigan, but added that this ruling is less distressing for Hawai'i, where there is no similar admissions policy.

"We would have liked a more supportive ruling but we could have got a less supportive ruling, too," he said.

Agbayani said Hawaiians and Filipinos, for example, respectively represent 27 percent and 19 percent in the public schools, but only 15 percent and 14 percent in the UH student population statewide. At Manoa, the shortfall is even greater; each of those groups claims only 9 percent of the student body.

"The University of Hawai'i and the state of Hawai'i agree that we need affirmative action to get talent included that has been traditionally excluded," she said. "The Supreme Court decision affirms that rationale."

In upholding the law school program that sought a "critical mass" of minorities, O'Connor sided with the court's more liberal justices. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 case finding against the undergraduate school. He was joined by O'Connor and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.