4. Appeal. Just before the foregoing trial on the complaint in intervention, I had received on July 10, 1981, the opening brief of the Carlin plaintiffs on their appeal from the Integration Order of October 2, 1979, approving a voluntary integration plan without a busing segment. Their lengthy brief was considerably devoted to the claim that it was error to omit mandatory reassignments from the plan, and particularly that portion in Part II, pages 148-172, captioned:

The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Order the Board to Develop and Implement an Effective Desegregation Plan on the Basis That a Mandatory Pupil Reassignment Program Would Cause a Substantial Loss of Middle Class Students.

Indicative of the social nature of the appeal seeking mandatory reassignments was Attachment A to the brief's appendices entitled "School Segregation and Residential Segregation: A Social Science Statement," dated March 21, 1979, endorsed by 38 social scientists, many of whom also endorsed the social science statement dated June 1991, referred to in Chapter Five.

My clients had the status of amici curiae on Oct. 2, 1979, the date of the order being attacked on appeal, not having been allowed to intervene until Dec., 1980, but we responded to the Carlin plaintiffs-appellants' brief in a brief entitled:

Brief by Groundswell, et al., as Interested Persons, as Amici Curiae, and as Real Respondents in Interest, in Support of Respondent Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District.

In that brief the Groundswell parents and students made the following points:

1. Appellants Seek to Impose Obligations Upon Respondent (Board of Education) Which Would Impact