Oklahoma City was set out in the Brief of Intervenors in Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District, as Amici curiae, in Support of Petitioner for Reversal, of the Tenth Circuit decision in Dowell. A copy of the Interest of Amici and the Summary of Argument is annexed as Appendix VI.

In that summary, the first point made by amici is that the Oklahoma City students are constitutionally protected from being racially discriminated against by being mandatorily reassigned indefinitely to other than their neighborhood elementary schools for racial balance. In effect, the argument of amici, in behalf of Oklahoma City students similarly situated to those in San Diego, opposed, as unconstitutionally discriminatory, busing proposals such as described by the trial court in Dowell, 677 F.Supp. at 1524-25:

In this phase of the litigation, plaintiffs are asking the court to implement a new desegregation plan prepared by Dr. Gordon Foster. (Plf. Ex. 57). Dr. Foster's proposal employs technique of pairing, clustering and busing in an effort to maintain racial balance in the school district's K-4 elementary schools.... Under Dr. Foster's proposal, young white students in grades 1-4 would be bused for the first time in the history of Oklahoma City....

The opposition of many of such students to such busing is indicated by the additional reason given by the trial judge, 677 F.Supp. at 1525 that "...if plaintiffs' proposal were implemented, it is probable that the school district would sustain a substantial wave of white flight...." The court added, 677 F.Supp. at 1527:

Dr. Foster's proposal calls for the wholesale cross-town busing of young students in Oklahoma City. It envisions perpetual implementation. In light of the school district's unitary status, the potential harms related to busing students at this tender age must be given serious consideration....