MONDAY'S decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the use of race as a consideration in college admissions offer encouragement to school leaders who have worked to build and maintain diverse student bodies, even in the face of court and political challenges. And they affirm those respected business and military leaders who argued that our country will not continue to be a world and economic power without the full input of our diverse citizenry.

The decisions acknowledge that diversity is worth seeking for its own sake -- for the ability it gives all of us to move forward with a better understanding of each other. Or, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it in her majority opinion supporting the University of Michigan's law school admissions policies, "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."

In a companion case, the court struck down the method Michigan used to rate its undergraduate applicants. Specifically, Michigan awarded 20 points toward admission to black, American Indian and Hispanic students, which gave them a benefit equal to raising their GPA by one letter grade. However, even though universities are barred from using such formulaic methods to automatically boost the prospects of racial minorities, they are not barred from using race in individual, case-by-case decisions about student admission. It is quite possible that the two unsuccessful undergraduate applicants who sued Michigan still would be denied today, albeit under a different process.

In ruling as it did, the court has reopened the doors for some colleges to again use race in considering their applicants. For example, the University of Georgia's points-based admissions system had been struck down by a lower court three years ago. Since then, the school has been barred from considering race in the applications process. Black enrollment has fallen to 6 percent in a state that is 29 percent black. The overall student body in the 34-campus University System of Georgia is 23 percent black. No doubt, UGA will now reexamine its policies.

The cases in Georgia and Michigan focused solely on race. A positive result of this week's decisions is that they encourage a broader view of diversity to carry our nation forward. One specific objection to the Michigan undergraduate points system is that only three racial classifications were awarded special consideration.

In the majority opinion tossing out that system, Chief Justice William Rehnquist quoted the words written by Justice Lewis Powell 25 years ago in the landmark Bakke case. Justice Powell said an admissions system must be flexible enough to consider, for example, an Italian-American's contribution to student body diversity, "flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant."

So diversity can mean age differences, ethic differences, gender and race. It can mean life experiences and place of birth or special talents offered.

Universities can consider the many characteristics that make people different, and shape a student body accordingly. Schools must now seize on this opportunity to build the strongest possible student bodies at the undergraduate and graduate levels -- the kind of student bodies that, through their eventual legacy of success, will carry that expanded definition of diversity into the working world.

Two other important themes have emerged from higher education leaders in their review of this decision and its implications. First, a number of college presidents have expressed concern about the rising cost of public college tuition. South Carolina is right in the national trend with state colleges increasing their tuition, some at close to 20 percent. That will serve to undermine diversity by driving lower socioeconomic families out of the college market.

Utah State University President Kermit Hall noted in The Chronicle of Higher Education that Michigan is among a handful of elite public institutions with such selective admissions procedures. Many public colleges admit more than 80 percent of the students who apply. He views the cost of higher education and the dearth of needs-based scholarships as the greater threat to diversity and opportunity on our nation's college campuses.

Secondly, college officials have noted that many minorities and students from poor families are not getting adequate K-12 preparation to make them eligible for and able to succeed in higher education. South Carolina certainly is an example of this type of discrimination, where black, poor and rural children, on average, consistently lag behind their suburban and urban peers on measures of academic success. This point of view argues that public colleges must be more active in ensuring successful, lifelong learning opportunities in their states.

The decisions, overall, are focused on the future. They do not propose that colleges seek diversity to make up for past ills, a problem so expansive it is hard to envision a workable remedy. Instead the Supreme Court has offered a package that looks to the future, to a nation that will only be its strongest if all of its citizens are allowed to make their best possible contributions.