Parents Can Challenge Perpetual
Court Assignment of Pupils,
In Pending Class Actions,
Toward Restoring Local Control
According to the Constitution

About the same time petitions for a Neighborhood Schools Amendment were gathered for congressional action, a commentary was published by Author Enstrom on September 18, 1977 in The San Diego Union entitled “Busing, Not Integration, Opposed.” He had been reading the Carlin trial reports in that paper, while questioning the extraordinary judicial power being sought to racially balance San Diego schools. For instance, Carlin counsel on January 25, 1977 demanded the involuntary racial assignments of non-class, innocent children, who lacked direct representation in this class action:

The “time for voluntary plans is over… they only postpone the inevitable....” (counsel for Carlin Plaintiffs).

(The court) asked, “Do you think that it is the duty of the district (to desegregate the schools) no matter what the price to individual children... the law must march on?”

“A difficult question, but yes, the law marches on....” (counsel for Carlin Plaintiffs).

Concerns that such involuntary integration plans were unlawful and counter-productive, as contrasted to lawful, voluntary integration, were expressed in Enstrom's commentary titled “Busing, Not Integration, Opposed.” During the period following its publication the Groundswell group strongly supported that position and importuned him to represent them. Upon their inability to retain counsel, Enstrom undertook pro bono representation on May 12, 1979, as detailed in Busing — Not Integration — Opposed (pp. 22, 25) and Liberate Public Schools (pp. 24-25).

This Handbook sums up the challenges, chronicled in its Introduction, met by Groundswell parents and their counsel in his representation to return local control of San Diego schools. This representation took off with their amici curiae brief, filed October 10, 1980, setting forth their constitutional objections to Carlin Plaintiffs' motion for the mandatory assignment of the Groundswell children on a racial basis for racial balancing purposes. This brief emphasized that the children to be so assigned and their parents were the real parties in interest, and were constitutionally entitled to separate representation. It is annexed as the
 

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

— Handbook: Challenge Six, pages 75 - 84 —