The U.S. Supreme Court's historic rulings on two University of Michigan affirmative action cases will reverberate through higher education circles for years to come.

But in South Carolina, college officials say they will have no impact on whom they admit to school, at least not anytime soon.

"We need to wait and see what, if anything, has really come from this," said Robert Barkley, director of admissions at Clemson University. "This could help us with some direction, but it's not a one-size-fits-all issue."

The rulings could have special significance in South Carolina, which has a high percentage of minority residents and a relatively low number of African-Americans enrolled at its public four-year colleges.

While nearly 40 percent of the state's high school students are African-American, they make up only about 19 percent of the undergraduate student population at its public colleges.

South Carolina's public colleges and universities say they use "race-blind" admissions policies.

The University of South Carolina's School of Law does consider race as one factor in reviewing applications, but does not ascribe a set number of points to minority candidates.

USC president Andrew Sorensen said despite the rulings, which left the door open for considering race in admissions, the school has no plans to change its policy.

"We are a university for all South Carolinians, not just for black or white, rich or poor," he said, pointing out USC already enrolls more African-American students than other schools in the region, about 16 percent of its overall student body.

"I don't want to restrict (admissions decisions) to race because we want to reach poor, white families, as well."

Affirmative action in student admissions is one of academe's most divisive issues. Supporters of such policies champion a racially diverse environment; opponents claim they go too far, creating an unequal playing field.

Some USC students Monday voiced ambivalence about the issue, while others remained deeply divided.

Chuck Boyle, a sophomore political science major, called affirmative action policies "asinine."

"If you're qualified for something, you should get it," he said. "You shouldn't get something just because you're a minority. They try to create equality, but it's not equal."

Quinten Dingle, a senior sociology major, said affirmative action is sorely needed, in part to make up for past injustices.

"If you look at the history of minorities in general, you see their struggle for equality has been much different than that of their white counterparts," he said. "I'm glad the court ruled in favor of the university in the law school case, and I think it's a big step forward for the country."

But some believe the split rulings left scant guidelines for colleges who want to use affirmative action. While recognizing the legitimacy of such policies, it limited the tactics schools could use to achieve a more racially diverse campus.

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn described the court's decision as a "mixed message."

Sheila Ards, vice president of community development and a public policy professor at Benedict College, agreed: "It doesn't give people a practical way to say, 'We value affirmative action.' It's like when they told the Jews to build bricks, but we're not going to give you any straw."

S.C. admissions officials will grapple with that issue at a regional conference on the rulings later this year.

Still, policy changes at many of those schools aren't likely.

"Ultimately, it'll be an institutional call," Clemson's Barkley said. "We've tried to develop a critical mass of minority students through pre-college efforts. It doesn't have to be only by admissions decisions."