students, who, as real parties in interest, could raise them more effectively than a school board or corporation. This would personalize the issues in presenting them to the Bird Court, and, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As noted above, the Los Angeles board had failed to appeal the 1976 Crawford decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Bustop had not yet entered that case, so that "anti-busing" parents and students had no separate voice at that time. My clients and I, then, had good reason (1) to raise appealable issues in their own behalf, and (2) not to depend upon a board decision, to which my clients would not be privy, to appeal an ultimate judicial decision adversely impacting upon them.

Our proposed complaint in intervention thus included claims by individual students as parties, as well as their parents and the Groundswell group which will be detailed later because this initial intervention application was denied.

The initial motion to intervene was filed on May 29, 1979, coincidentally the date when the president of the Los Angeles Board of Education was recalled by the voters of Los Angeles. It was heard on June 14 and was denied as untimely, as the hearing on the progress of the voluntary integration plan had been set for June 25.

However, the court granted the Groundswell group friend-of-the-court status, which we accepted for the time being, with the feeling that a more favorable and timely opportunity to intervene would arise in the future.

At the hearings which ended July 3rd, the plaintiffs, as expected, made a strong effort to have a busing segment introduced into the integration plan. Among their witnesses were Prof. Meyer Weinberg and Dr. Karl Taeuber, who recently signed a June 1991 statement (supporting busing orders) entitled School Desegregation: A Social Science Statement. This statement was annexed to the brief of the NAACP, DeKalb County, Georgia, Branch of the NAACP, et al., as amici curiae in support of respondents (busing proponents) in Freeman v. Pitts, which case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 7, 1991, and will be discussed later.

I was given an opportunity to briefly argue amici's position on July 3, 1979. I first emphasized that the San Diego school district had never operated a dual educational system and was now implementing in