Although expected to be the most crucial decisions regarding affirmative action since the 1978 Bakke verdict, the future of affirmative action policy still remains somewhat unclear after yesterday’s split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court upheld an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan’s graduate law school with a 5-4 ruling, while declaring a similar undergraduate program unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.

In the majority opinion of the graduate case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited the significance of equal opportunities by quoting the 50-year-old landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education.

“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 said in her brief. “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.”

However, in the second case, the Court ruled the point-based system Michigan used to evaluate undergraduate admission requirements was unconstitutional. In his majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist said although it is important to encourage diversity on college campuses, the point system was not the solution.

Michigan’s undergraduate program was based on a 150-point scale used to evaluate all applicants. With this scale, minorities received an automatic 20 points – in some cases, giving race a greater value than academic performance, writing ability and leadership skills.

Although the law school’s program does not follow such a strict point-based scale, the two programs are still similar, since they are both race-conscious. Both seek to create a diverse learning experience by attracting people of various races and ethnicities to the university.

Granted, the Michigan cases are the most significant affirmative action cases to reach the Supreme Court in recent years. However, the one-vote difference between the high court’s two decisions could ultimately lead to problems with future affirmative action cases, since the university’s role in promoting diversity still remains unclear.

The split decisions send a very confusing message to universities, businesses and individuals who could face similar situations.

Without a consistent precedent, there is no definite background on which to base future cases and no coherent vision for the place and the purpose of affirmative action in America.