for Local Control of Education
factor when all that is practicable has been done to attain that status. Amici could further similarly argue the concept of federalism requires the end of court supervision as to student assignment. This concept was advanced by the author initially in an amici brief (Appendix) as to the Carlin class action and later in his books to other class actions.
In addition, Amici can argue the separate interest of parents opposed to the racial discrimination of their children in their school assignments in the ongoing “desegregation” supervisions. History teaches that amici curiae presentations have been very effective where an interest against racial discrimination is not otherwise represented in a proceeding before the court. See dictum in Jackson v. Pasadena City School District (1963), reviewed in Note, 51 Cal.L.Review 810).
Another precedent supports appointment of an attorney as amicus curiae in a case where an important interest against race discrimination is otherwise unrepresented.
The maintenance of a form of racial discrimination prompted the judicial appointment of an amicus curiae in Bob Jones University v. United States, 456 U.S. 922 (1982). The interests to be advanced by an amicus in these “desegregation” class actions may be compared to those against racial discrimination in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). Being unrepresented, those interests were presented by the appointed amicus in that case.
Bob Jones University, a private religious university, had a policy prohibiting interracial dating and marriage by its white and black students. This was racially discriminatory, according to Internal Revenue Service policy, which formed the basis for denying a claimed tax exempt status. Id. at 581.
The Court found the university policy was a form of racial discrimination (reportedly since discontinued), and upheld amicus' position in support of the judgment below finding the IRS policy was properly applied to Bob Jones University. Id. at 605.
In the course of its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that there is a national policy against racial discrimination in education, and that the government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating it. Id. at 593,604.
Pasadena, California
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
[conclusion of Carlin v. Board of Education]
San Diego, California
— Handbook: Conclusion, pages 85 - 88 —
|
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 |
|