... The Board's primary contention here is that "white flight," which all parties concede has taken place in the school district, will accelerate if this plan is put into effect....

Unsuccessful arguments such as this show the need for affected students to have a direct voice in these cases because school board defendants have been unable to advance the personal rights of "anti-busing" non-party students, who have been largely white but include blacks and those of other races in increasing numbers who want to be able to attend their neighborhood schools. Thus, school board attempts to otherwise present non-party views by arguing, for instance, that whites would abandon public schools, if bused, have been ruled irrelevant because "the vitality of these constitutional principles (justifying busing) cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them." Monroe v. Board of Com'rs of City of Jackson, Tenn., 391 U.S. 450, 459 (1968).

However, concern about the bystanders was implicit in the following statement by then- Justice Rehnquist regarding the L.A. board's effort to stay busing:

... Because projections indicated that the school district in 1987 will consist of only 14% white students, the Superior Court asserted that its task was to achieve the optimal use of white students in the schools so that the maximum number of schools may be desegregated.

I find this analysis somewhat troublesome, since it puts "white" students much in the position of textbooks, visual aids, and the like—an element that every good school should have. And it appears clear that this Court, sooner or later, will have to confront the issue of "white flight" by whatever term it is denominated....

Accordingly, my objective was to establish standing by intervenors to assert claims before the trial court requiring consideration of, among other things, the concern expressed by Justice Rehnquist. This was done, by naming individual "anti-busing" students and their parents as