group, who were now intervenors, so I filed their cross-appeal on Nov. 9, 1981, from the 9/8/81 order to preserve those points.

In the period following the filing of the Carlin and "Groundswell" briefs on appeal of the 10/2/79 order to the Court of Appeal, the defendant Board had secured a series of extensions of time for the filing of its brief. Eventually it was allowed to await the decision on the challenge to Prop. 1 (labeled the "anti-busing" amendment to the California Constitution), which was upheld in Crawford III by the Supreme Court on June 30, 1982.

Subsequently, all pending appeals were dismissed or abandoned in March, 1983, pursuant to stipulation, including the Carlin appeals from the integration orders, mentioned above, omitting busing segments. Consequently, the San Diego Unified School District students have been free as of the writing of this book from mandatory assignments to particular schools on the basis of race at all times since the institution of the Carlin case in 1967.

In a document, dated Feb. 21, 1983, entitled Contention of Intervenors re Motion of Plaintiffs to Restrain Defendant from Proceeding with 6th Grade Camp Program, the Groundswell intervenors restated their position as to school programs which required that "participating groups shall be ethnically balanced:" [Emphasis added]

Intervenors reiterate their contention that the concept of a color-blind Constitution should apply to the programs of defendant. This concept has not yet been squarely presented to the Supreme Court by a party with standing to present it in a school desegregation case.

Hopefully, the concluding chapter will assist dedicated groups composed of all races similar to "Groundswell" (who feel voluntary programs in the American tradition can better achieve integration, but seeking to be free from court-ordered school assignments on the basis of race) in presenting that concept to the court.