San Diegans Challenge Perpetual
Court Assignment of Pupils,
Emanating from Carlin v. Board of Education,
To Restore Local Control
According to the Constitution

the preceding twenty years.

Additionally, the Board was confronted with rooting out of existence on July 1, 1998, administrative procedures for assigning students on the basis of race to racially balance schools, classrooms and seats within classrooms. Groundswell cited Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995) as requiring elimination of the following procedures.

1. A Basic Rule mandating racially balanced classrooms.
    
2. VEEP Administrative Procedures defining racially imbalanced schools, monitoring enrollments, and “work(ing) with that school in implementing an action plan to assure a 50/50 balance....”
    
3. District Procedures re: Establishment and Change of Attendance Areas Criteria setting boundaries with precedence to “a. Racial and Ethnic Balance” and failing in the remaining “b” to “h” criteria to include the most important criterion of “proximity” of the family home to the school.
    

Study of the Law

We next look at some briefly described modes of racial discrimination nullified recently as unconstitutional, to alert a careful study of the facts, conclusions and decisions in the various cases according to the readers' interests.

7-year old white Jacob Eisenberg successfully challenged denial of his request to go to a magnet school because of “its impact on diversity.” Underlying the notice was the determination of the school board to achieve racial balance in its schools in accordance with its countywide population. In effect, his request was denied on the basis of his race. Montgomery County Public Schools v. Eisenberg, 197 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 1999). Reversed Eisenberg v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 19 F.Supp.2d 449 (D.Md. 1998). Certiorari denied 2000 U.S.Lexis 1925 (3/20/00). Compare Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board, 195 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999).

Teen white Sarah Wessmann successfully challenged denial of
 

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

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995)
 

Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 411 (Feb.1998)
[conclusion of Carlin v. Board of Education]
San Diego, California
 

Eisenberg 

Eisenberg v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 19 F.Supp.2d 449 (D.Md. 1998);
Montgomery County, Maryland
 

Montgomery County Public Schools v. Eisenberg, 197 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 1999)
Montgomery County, Maryland
 

Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board, 195 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999)
Arlington County, Virginia
 

— Handbook: Challenge Five, pages 65 - 74 —