San Diego Parents Challenge
Busing of Their Children,
in Carlin v. Board of Education,
as Real Parties In Interest,
Entitled to Intervene

of between 80,000 and 100,000 first- through ninth-grade (Los Angeles) students attending approximately 165 elementary and junior high schools ....” Board of Ed., Etc. v. Superior Court, 448 U.S. 1343. But Enstrom saw hope for Groundswell parents in the following concern expressed about bystanders by then-Justice Rehnquist, while being unable to grant a stay on the record before him (448 U.S. at 1347):

... Because projections indicated that the school district in 1987 will consist of only 14% white students, the Superior Court asserted its task was to achieve the optimal use of white students in the schools so that the maximum number of schools may be desegregated.

I find this analysis somewhat 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. And it appears clear that this Court, sooner or later, will have to confront the issue of ‘white flight' by whatever term it is denominated ....

This expression was in line with Enstrom's belief that the key to possible success of the non-Class Groundswell students and parents rested in separate representation by intervention. Thereupon, they could assert consideration as “persons” not “elements” in the case and present constitutional issues that school boards lacked ability to pose in these cases, but individuals could raise.
 

Grounds Build for Intervention by Groundswell Parents

Notwithstanding Proposition 1, on October 3, 1980 the Carlin Class applied for an order to appoint a Special Master who would design an integration plan to “maximize classroom integration in every school in the District.” The Groundswell group requested, and was granted, leave to appear and file a brief, as Interested Persons (under Proposition 1) and Amici Curiae, in opposition to the Carlin Class application (which did not succeed). They alleged that it was unconstitutional to appoint such a Special Master, with power “to make mandatory pupil assignments on the basis of their race to particular schools” in the District.

This brief acclaimed the right of Groundswell parents to be heard
 

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

Board of Ed., etc. 

Board of Ed., etc. v. Superior Court, 448 U.S. 1343 (1980)
[related to Crawford — Bustop]
Los Angeles, California
 

— Handbook: Challenge One, pages 23 - 31 —