Busing —Not Integration— Opposed: Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It / Chapter Two |
32 | |||||||||||||||||||
Dissenters' Voices Muted in Legal Cases | ||||||||||||||||||||
good faith a voluntary integration plan. I urged, that merely because plaintiffs were not satisfied with the degree of integration achieved by such a plan to that time, the Court should not order mandatory assignments of students, solely because of their race, to particular schools. I gave the following reasons: (1) that this would introduce the elements of force and discrimination into the plan, reiterating Justice Powell's point that the burden of such a desegregation decree falls upon innocent children and their parents; and (2) that trial court itself had pointed out that there were a substantial number of minority as well as majority parents who oppose forced busing who had not had an opportunity to be heard. And I closed by urging that Chief Justice Earl Warren's statement in his memoirs applied here (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. We breathed a sigh of relief when the Court determined in an order re the integration plan filed on October 2, 1979, not to order the busing of students for the forthcoming school year. In the meantime, the California Legislature had approved for vote by the electorate on November 6, 1979, as Proposition 1, an "anti-busing" amendment to the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7(a), as set forth in App. II, to limit the Crawford I ruling, providing in pertinent part: (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Crawford I | Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976) [related to Bustop — Board of Ed., etc.] Los Angeles, California |
|||||||||||||||||||
— Busing: Chapter 2, pages 29 - 40 — | ||||||||||||||||||||
|