When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decisions in the University of Michigan affirmative-action cases 10 months ago, it reaffirmed one of my bedrock beliefs, that the benefits of diversity are real, substantial, and worth pursuing vigorously. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it eloquently: "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

It has become clear that the court has laid down a challenge to higher education, and college administrators are left with as many questions as they have answers. What are the implications for admission practices and procedures? What are the consequences for financial aid, scholarship, and outreach programs? And what does it all mean for colleges trying to craft enrollment policies?

In the intervening months, colleges have begun to assess the impact of the Michigan decisions and make policy decisions that will shape admissions, financial aid, and outreach practices for years to come. In some cases the fear of continuing scrutiny by opponents of affirmative action may be prompting them to abandon consideration of race or ethnicity in programs, while elsewhere institutions that see a victory in the Michigan decisions may be maintaining existing practices -- in both instances without research or analysis. Those extremes may, on the one hand, undermine the achievement of diversity goals and, on the other, continue to expose institutions to legal risk.

Soon after the Michigan decisions, the College Board began a set of activities designed to help our member institutions understand the rulings' practical implications. As a first step we organized a series of six meetings across the country that brought together college administrators and legal experts. Now we are planning a variety of support services through conferences, workshops, and institution-specific training sessions.

What lessons have we learned? On the legal front, there are often no black-and-white interpretations of what is "legal" or "constitutional," but there is general agreement that the ultimate test of the appropriateness or legality of a particular practice is the soundness of its underlying educational rationale and the evidence gathered to support that rationale. The legal experts stressed that, where the University of Michigan had prevailed, it had conducted substantial research to support the claim of the educational benefits of diversity and their connection to each institution's specific mission. As an admissions director told us, a good institutional-research department is as important as a good lawyer.

Although the court's decisions directly addressed the use of race in admissions, they have important implications as well for outreach, recruiting, financial aid and scholarships, and retention programs, the legal experts said. On recruiting and outreach, the experts generally saw practices designed to expand the pool of potential applicants as viable as long as they do not provide tangible educational benefits to students of certain racial or ethnic groups, to the exclusion of others. For example, race-sensitive recruitment through programs such as the Student Search Service that are intended to inform students about particular institutions are probably defensible, while activities like expense-paid trips to campuses and to summer programs that are race-exclusive might be questionable. In many cases, it was noted, programs can be just as effective, and easier to defend, if participants are selected on a geographic or socioeconomic basis, or by considering multiple factors.

The legal experts noted that current federal guidelines for considering race in awarding financial aid were issued by the Department of Education in 1994. Those guidelines speak of important differences between admissions and financial aid, based on the rationale that an admissions decision is of greater consequence than a financial-aid decision. In practice, many experts thought that institutions could have different pools of funds available for different groups of students. The key factor would be whether or not students from all races and backgrounds could benefit from the entire pool of financial aid. Nevertheless, several of our legal advisers still questioned the constitutionality of race-exclusive scholarships and automatically giving special packages to members of particular racial or ethnic groups.

Other common themes arose in our discussions. Most important was the widely perceived need for colleges to have an institutionwide commitment to diversity. Achieving diversity is not just the responsibility of the admissions department. It extends to the faculty and the curriculum, advising and retention programs, financial aid and scholarships, student services, housing, the bursar's office, public affairs, campus security, the institution's budget, alumni, and so forth. It is difficult to justify the limited consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions and other programs without evidence that such practices are part of a larger institutional commitment to the educational benefits of diversity.

Further, there was broad agreement on the required elements of a campus diversity policy. They include:

Developing a consensus on the meaning of diversity at a particular institution. For example, an engineering program might be particularly interested in attracting more women and underrepresented minority students. Another program or institution might define diversity in socioeconomic terms.

Making sure the diversity policy is clearly articulated and widely available to students and faculty and staff members, as well as to prospective students and their families, school counselors, and the general public. That is important information as students evaluate what institution is best for them.

Examining all programs and activities on the campus. What is the educational rationale for each program? How does it relate to the overall diversity goals of the institution? How does it conform to the Supreme Court decisions?

Monitoring and formally evaluating all programs and activities.

The importance of research and evaluation was underscored again and again, from keeping track of the numbers -- student-recruitment populations, applicant pools, accepted and denied students, and enrolled students at all levels -- to establishing a sound research agenda. Many of the meeting participants pointed to the extensive research that the University of Michigan has conducted for years. They also suggested that questions on diversity be included on surveys taken by incoming and graduating students, and that focus groups of current students be organized to monitor progress toward meeting diversity goals. In addition, it was clear that more attention must be given to developing models of institutional research on the benefits of diversity.

Our conversations with our members have demonstrated that they continue to prize campus diversity as highly as ever. Even those who have been required to abandon race-conscious admissions policies have worked hard and creatively to maintain or increase diversity on their campuses. Still, many, in honest self-reflection, said they believed that admissions professionals and campus leaders had slipped into complacency in the years leading up to the Michigan decisions, assuming that race-conscious admissions policies were unassailable. For them, the Michigan rulings clearly amounted to a wake-up call.

But to what new reality are we awakening? Certainly one in which colleges that pursue the educational benefits of diversity will have to invest more time, money, and hard work in ensuring that their programs and policies rest on solid legal and educational foundations. Beyond that, a larger and arguably more important issue remains: the urgent need to expand the pool of well-prepared minority and underserved students ready to enter and succeed in our colleges and universities.

The Supreme Court issued an explicit challenge when it stated that race-conscious admissions policies should no longer be necessary in 25 years. For that to happen, many things will have to change. For one, colleges will have to work more closely with elementary and secondary schools. Our members told us that stronger relationships are needed between colleges of education and local schools, aimed at better teacher preparation, curriculum development, and teaching strategies. They also emphasized the importance of pipeline programs that offer enrichment for underprepared students and make them more aware of college opportunities, though many felt that those efforts should begin in the elementary- and middle-school years. Now, students often do not begin college preparation until the first year of high school. By then they may already have missed learning the skills needed to succeed in rigorous high-school courses.

The College Board is helping to address this issue by launching SpringBoard, a program focused on the middle grades in mathematics and English-language arts. The heart of the program is standards for acquiring skills from the 6th through 12th grades. The goal is to put students on the path to college success. The program was tested this year in 36 middle schools, with varying characteristics and locations. Teachers reported that it not only engaged students but also led them to think critically and use problem-solving strategies. It is our hope that SpringBoard will significantly expand the number of minority and traditionally underserved students who enter the college pipeline.

When we look back from the vantage of the future, I hope we will be able to say that the Supreme Court's Michigan decisions were the impetus for positive change in expanding access to higher education.

Gaston Caperton is president of the College Board.