In school desegregation cases, the justices traditionally have made an exception for race-conscious remedies that counteract the effects of past discrimination.

The central theme of that opinion is that race-conscious remedies are obviously required to remedy racially discriminatory actions by the state that violate the 14th Amendment.

This is basically throwing out any kind of pretense that explicit race-conscious remedies have to be predicated on a finding of discrimination.

Cynical of one municipality's attempt to redress the effects of past racial discrimination in a particular industry, the majority launches a grapeshot attack on race-conscious remedies in general.

The crucial question in both Michigan cases is whether racial and ethnic diversity in higher education is, in legal parlance, a "compelling state interest" that demands a race-conscious remedy.

For six years the Reagan Administration has insisted that courts cannot order race-conscious remedies even where efforts to correct discrimination have met with steady resistance.

"One need look no further than the Voting Rights Act to understand this may be required," Justice Souter said of race-conscious remedies.

On affirmative action, he often joined narrow majorities that thwarted the Reagan Administration's opposition to most race-conscious remedies to discrimination.

Some critics see proportional representation as just another overly race-conscious remedy in a different form.

That approach, civil rights leaders contend, flies in the face of Supreme Court rulings which hold that race-conscious remedies are necessary to remedy the effects of racial discrimination.