As one of the premier institutions in the country, Harvard is used to acting affirmatively.

But on affirmative action, the University has been forced to adopt an uncomfortable "wait and see" attitude.

And University officials say they are frightened that an adverse Supreme Court ruling might throw their entire philosophy of diversity in education out the window.

Last March, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the University of Texas Law School's affirmative action program for admissions, ruling that race could not be considered as a factor.

The case, Hopwood v. Texas, was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the court refused this summer to hear the case, leaving the lower court decision on the books.

The Hopwood ruling now affects only Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, which are covered by the Fifth Circuit.

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the rest of the country remains governed by the 1978 Bakke v. California decision, which ruled that race can be used as one factor among many in the admissions process.

Officials at schools across the nation say they are concerned that another case may soon reach the Supreme Court and the Bakke ruling could be overturned.

At Harvard, President Neil L. Rudenstine has spoken out repeatedly during the past six months in favor of affirmative action, saying that it, as defined by the Bakke case, is necessary to achieve educational diversity.

Now he, and college officials across the country, can only wait and watch for the Supreme Court's next move.

The Legal History

In 1992, four white students sued the University of Texas, claiming that they were discriminated against because of race when they were denied admission to its law school.

According to Steven W. Smith, the Austin attorney who originally took their case, the students never objected to the principles of admissions outlined by the Bakke ruling, but rather wanted the school to take into account more factors than simply race in giving preference in admissions.

Smith says he and his clients believed that in many cases, race was not as important a factor in establishing the need for preference as family background, schooling and socio-economic class.

"The system said that people who are situated similarly economically and scholastically, say where they went to school or where they grew up, should be treated differently," Smith says. "Blacks, Mexican-Americans and whites who grew up on the same street were treated vastly differently when it came to admissions."