The case was argued on October 2, 1990. I examined the Arguments Before the Court published by The United States Law Week on October 9 to find that there was no direct reference to the concerns about bystanders as mentioned by Justice Powell in Keyes and then- Justice Rehnquist in Crawford, and expanded upon in my brief. Nevertheless, I derived encouragement from the questions raised by the justices about such matters as the definition of “segregation” and the length of time it would take to end busing under the interpretation of doctrine urged by busing proponents, reported at 59 LW 3263, 3264. Excerpts from that report are set forth in Busing — Opposed at 59-61.

Particularly edifying is that under the definition of segregation argued by the busing proponent to Justice Scalia, elementary students in Oklahoma City could be bused indefinitely (id. at 61, paras.3-4):

But if a quarter century of busing hasn’t helped, how is it justifiable? Scalia demanded. It countered the residential segregation that the court was trying to address, and helped integrate the schools, Chambers responded. The question is how do we ensure that black children are not relegated to all black schools, he added.

So the remedy is permanent, not transitional, Scalia offered. Chambers replied that the desegregation plan is designed to remedy a constitutional violation, we cannot say for how long....

A similar misuse of the definition of “segregation” in a study pertaining thereto by the U.S. Department of Education, commissioned by the National School Boards Association, was pointed out by a columnist in a January 17, 1992 San Diego Union column “But This is not Segregation.” He complained (see Busing — Opposed at 120-122):

Segregation, as the word is used in the study, describes the condition in which blacks (or Hispanics) outnumber whites, but not the reverse.

On January 15, 1991, the decision was rendered in Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City P. Sch. v. Dowell, 111 S.Ct. 630, on the issues