Officials at California's private universities -- the only colleges in the state allowed to use race in admissions -- said Monday they believe their programs meet the legal test on affirmative action laid out by the Supreme Court.

But opponents of using race-based preferences said Monday that the decision did not answer important questions and will spur more lawsuits.

Public universities in California are barred from considering race under Proposition 209.

Officials from Stanford and Santa Clara universities and the University of Southern California said their admissions practices meet the Supreme Court guidelines because race and ethnicity is but one of many factors they consider. Still, they said they would review the decisions carefully and make any needed adjustments.

``We don't have a numerical formula,'' said Robin Mamlet, Stanford's admissions dean. ``We look at each candidate holistically and the primary criterion is who has the creative potential to contribute.''

Based on the university's initial reading, ``this won't change what we do here as a private institution,'' said Kevin Lum Lung, Santa Clara University's associate dean of undergraduate admissions. ``And I have a feeling it won't change for my colleagues at most private institutions.''

Ward Connerly, whose efforts to promote a ``race-blind'' society include the successful passage of Proposition 209, said in a statement that the rulings are ambiguous. The 1996 initiative bars California's use of racial preferences in education, employment and contracting.

``These conflicting decisions consign our nation to another generation of litigation and agony about the constitutionally permissible uses of `race,' '' he said.

But Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, said the ruling is clear: ``The court has said that race-conscious affirmative action can be constructed to achieve diversity.''

In its landmark ruling Monday, the court said that race could be considered in admissions. It approved the approach used by the University of Michigan's Law School, which used race as a ``plus'' factor, but struck down the automatic 20 points Michigan assigned to undergraduate applicants who are black, Latino and American Indian.

Although the University of Michigan is public, private universities are subject to the court's rulings if they receive federal funding.

``Private schools will scrutinize these decisions to make sure their programs are in conformity, but at the end of the day my guess is that few will have to amend their policies,'' said Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education. ``The handwriting has been on the wall for a decade. Selective schools have gone to individual file review for all applicants.''

But no university is going to acknowledge using unconstitutional standards, said Curt Levey of the Center for Individual Rights, which filed the Michigan cases.

``I think as many schools do what the Michigan undergrad program does as what the Michigan Law School does,'' he said. ``No schools are going to admit using race in a mechanistic, decisive way. I think what you will see is schools quietly eliminate race completely or using race in more individualistic ways.''

But race is important, said Stanford student Eleanor Williams.

``I'm definitely for affirmative action,'' said Williams, 21, a senior who is originally from South Africa. ``There are so many social inequities in place because of race that affect people's access to opportunity and what they think is possible for them.''

At the University of California-Berkeley on Monday, a coalition of students held a news conference to hail the justices' decision, saying the move bolsters efforts to repeal California's ban on race-based admissions practices.

``It's a sad day when the conservative Supreme Court says diversity is a compelling interest in higher education and we are handcuffed by Proposition 209,'' said law student Mo Kashmiri, 24.

Students argue that since the passage of Proposition 209, University of California enrollment does not reflect the state's racial and ethnic diversity.

``It's so hard to be in a class of 500 students and they say the word `race' or `Latino' and all eyes are on you because there are only two or three of you,'' said Bernice Espinoza, 21, who will begin law school at Berkeley in the fall.

The rulings may also have political reverberations. Maria Blanco, national senior counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said she hoped the rulings would convince people that Proposition 209 went too far.

But Sharon Browne of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has filed lawsuits to enforce Proposition 209, said the court's decision could propel voters in other states to pass similar laws.

``California is the leader in this field,'' Browne said, ``because California has shown the rest of the nation you can provide equal opportunity to everyone without looking at the color of skin and sex.''