Groundswell Dissenters Achieve
Amici Curiae Status

On May 29, 1979, Groundswell’s motion to intervene was filed, incidentally being also the date on which the president of the Los Angeles Board was recalled. It was denied on June 14 as untimely in view of scheduled hearing on the efficacy of the voluntary plan which took place between June 25 and July 3, 1979. But amici status was granted and I attended the hearing.

As expected, the Carlin-class made a strong effort to introduce a busing segment into the integration plan by prominent social scientists and educators. The Board countered with their experts, notably with evidence of prospective “white flight” upon such an order. However, I was permitted to briefly argue, namely, that objecting persons would be racially discriminated against by the proposed busing, citing Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Memoirs (pp.287-8):

“Again the Court was unanimous in its decision of May 31, 1955, reaffirming its earlier decision of May 17, 1954, by asserting the fundamental principle that any kind of racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, and that all provisions of federal, state, or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle.”

On October 2, 1979 the Court determined in an order re: the integration plan not to order busing of students for the forthcoming year. But the threat continued, for the plan would be reviewed yearly, and the Carlin-class filed an appeal from the failure to include a busing segment in that order.

In the meantime, the California electorate had debated and then on November 6, 1979 adopted an “anti-busing” amendment (Proposition 1) to the California Constitution limiting busing to that permitted under federal decisional law. But this amendment too faced appeal by the Crawford plaintiff-class whose ACLU-affiliated counsel were also co-counsel for the Carlin class.

Following the adoption of Proposition 1, the reformed Los Angeles Board moved to discontinue busing in that city, but the trial judge denied it on the grounds of an earlier judicial finding of de jure segregation by that