features in, and underlying, the present plan, mandating race balancing.

Accordingly, we urged the Board to return to its 1981 position when it proposed final approval of a voluntary integration plan, based upon the precedential ruling by Judge Lopez terminating the Crawford case on September 10, 1981. We contended the history of events in both cases taught the wisdom of emulating the Los Angeles Board’s approach, noting particularly Footnote 7, wherein Judge Lopez quoted from Crawford II:

(7) Crawford II, p. 648. The Court of Appeal quoted the Supreme Court as follows: "In a school district in which ‘minority’ students significantly outnumber ‘majority’ students, a school whose racial composition might in some other district make it a ‘segregated school’ may not warrant that legal characteristic. (fn. 1) (Crawford (I), p. 304, fn. 16)." The Court of Appeal went on to say: "That of course is the existing situation in the District where white students are now a minority in that they comprise 23.7 percent of the total student population and 16.1 percent of grades K-3. Yet for the purpose of applying the legal principles related to school segregation, whites are still designated as the ‘majority’ and segregation is viewed in terms of the minorities, or any one of them, being isolated from whites. (fn. 3)" The court said further in footnote 3, "That approach appears to be a hangover from the historic situation in some areas in the country which produced the background against which the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, supra, was rendered. The wisdom of, or the need to, perpetuate that approach here is questionable since, when considered in terms of the ethnic composition of the Los Angeles Unified School District, it appears to denigrate the dignity and capability of the minority students. In effect, it implies that ethnic ‘minority’ children, even when they constitute a numerical majority and thus do not suffer the psychological trauma of deliberate isolation, cannot achieve best results except in the presence of a token number of white students."

In conclusion, we argued that the facts and law required recommitment by the Board to a non-discriminatory, voluntary