period busing advocates were advocating that the courts institute metropolitan busing plans so students whose families had fled to the suburbs could be "recaptured" for desegregation purposes.

Chapter Two, entitled Dissenters' Voices Muted in Legal Cases, covers the period from the author's pro bono publico undertaking of representation of the San Diego busing dissenters in the spring of 1979 until they succeeded (after an unsuccessful effort) in intervening in December 1980. It also relates the unsuccessful efforts, in a related San Bernardino case, by the San Diego dissenters to respond, as amici curiae, to an attack on Proposition 1 (an amendment, enacted November 6, 1979, to the California Constitution in effect reversing the Crawford approval of busing on the basis of a judicial finding of de facto segregation).

Chapter Three, entitled Dissenters Recognized as Real Parties in San Diego Case relates how the "Groundswell" dissenters finally accomplished intervention in the Carlin case on December 15, 1980, after watching Los Angeles busing dissenters fail to stop busing there that fall. Those efforts in behalf of the Los Angeles dissenters by a nonprofit corporation, Bustop, Inc., and their school board, had ended on September 12, 1980, when then- Justice Rehnquist denied a board request for a stay of an order busing thousands of students to other than neighborhood schools. But the justice found the approach of the trial court in seeking to desegregate the maximum number of schools by the optimal use of a limited number of white students troublesome "since it puts `white' students much in the position of textbooks, visual aids, and the like — an element that every good school should have."

This statement reinforced the author's belief that dissenting students, whatever their race, must become parties to avoid being treated in these cases as "elements." Accordingly, individual students, along with their parents and the "Groundswell" association, asserted claims under the state and federal constitutions that had not been asserted in the precedents relied on by busing advocates. The fact that San Diego remains one of the few major cities to so far escape a busing order attests to the success of this intervention, detailed in Chapter Six, infra.

In Chapter Four, Befriending Busing Dissenters in the Supreme Court, the author relates his endeavor to gain recognition of the views of the San Diego dissenting student-intervenors, in behalf of the students wanting to attend their neighborhood schools in Oklahoma City and DeKalb County, Georgia, in amici curiae briefs filed before the Supreme Court in the Dowell (1991) and Freeman (1992) cases. Unfortunately, a