| Busing — Not Integration — Opposed |
xii | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction | |||||||||||||||||||||
| previous | next | ||||||||||||||||||||
| reading of the decisions in those cases finds that non-class, non-party students adversely affected by busing decrees continue to be treated impersonally as though they were merely elements in integration plans. And that their hope of attending their neighborhood schools continues to depend entirely upon their school boards' compliance with judicial requirements, formed in cases in which adversely-affected parents and students were not parties, as to operation of their school systems.
But the Court did hold in Dowell that such decrees were not intended to operate in perpetuity, and in Freeman that the district court could relinquish control over school districts incrementally. And a study of the records in both cases, excerpts of which are set forth in Chapter Four, indicates a growing concern among the justices about the permanence of court-ordered busing, which the author argues in succeeding chapters must be addressed by the busing dissenters individually because of the inability of school boards to do so effectively. But, the author warns, the busing dissenters who must address those concerns by an intervention will face formidable opposition, resting upon an extraordinary historical background. He describes that background in Chapter Five — Busing Advocacy Is Understandable, But Without Understanding — in which those now advocating busing emerged victorious after a long and difficult struggle in overturning Plessy. The author could argue the point that busing advocacy is understandable because of a natural urge to press such a hard fought judicial victory to the greatest extent possible. Rather, he points out an understandable zeal by busing advocates in having the judiciary mandate busing indefinitely to accomplish "desegregation," arising from a sincere belief in the benefits of "desegregation." But that the sincere effort to achieve this goal by this undemocratic method, in which innocent, dissenting students are treated as elements in integration plans, runs afoul of Justice Louis Brandeis' famous Olmstead admonition:
Chapter Six, The San Diego Dissenters' Formula For Opposing Busing, gives the history of the author's pro bono representation of these busing dissenters since 1979. It relates the unprecedented legal impediments to busing raised in behalf of these busing dissenters (1) in their |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Plessy | Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 (1896) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Olmstead | Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dowell | Dowell v. Bd. of Educ. of Okl. City Public Schools, (10th Cir. 1989), 890 F.2d 1483 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Freeman | Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992) DeKalb County, Georgia |
||||||||||||||||||||
| previous | next | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||