Civil rights attorneys and school desegregation, Enstrom 'Handbook' Challenge4 page-60

Parental Handbook
for Local Control of Education / Challenge Four

San Diego Intervenors
Challenge Court Assignment of Pupils
in Carlin v. Board of Education
Toward Restoring Local Control
of San Diego Public Schools

for reconsideration, was a guide in terminating these proceedings. For that case made it clear that Freeman offered no support for contentions that judicial jurisdiction could be retained until the academic goals sought in behalf of “minority” students were met in the absence of a finding of a constitutional violation by this school district. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Board to see that the school system being restored to its control operated in compliance with the Constitution.

The second point was that the San Diego school system must discontinue racial balancing to be in compliance with the Constitution. This was also incompatible with the best educational interests of “minorities” by reason of a conflict of interest with their attorneys. Intervenors argued the conflict arose in the following manner:

The record shows that Plaintiffs are represented by civil rights attorneys (ACLU) within the meaning of the article “Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and Client Interest in School Desegregation Litigation,” by Derrick A. Bell, Jr., in The Yale Law Journal, vol. 85: 470, 1976. Professor Bell points out the conflict of interest between the integration ideals of civil rights attorneys via race balancing, and the espousal of educational improvement by the minorities they purport to represent....

On May 14, 1996, Groundswell in a second brief referred to their March 18, 1996, brief calling for the presentation of a plan which would not carry forward the unconstitutional features in, and underlying, the present plan, mandating race balancing.

Accordingly, Intervenors 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.

Groundswell Presents Objections re: the Integration Plan to the Board on May 23 and 30, 1996

In the meantime the Board had set public hearings on its integration plan, to which Groundswell Intervenors came to believe were designed to support Board's position favoring indefinite continuance of court

Crawford

Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles,
Los Angeles Superior Court No. 822,854 (1963-1981)
Los Angeles, California

Carlin

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

Freeman

Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia

— Handbook: Challenge Four, pages 55 - 63 —



Parental Handbook For Parents Dedicated to Local Control of Public Education of Children According to the Constitution by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.		Contents
Challenges of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit: an exemplar of citizens reasserting Constitutional rights.

© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation	www.EnstromFoundation.org