The foregoing difficult challenges faced by Groundswell required pro bono representation, as may similarly situated counterparts elsewhere. If they cannot obtain necessary representation, the need might be met by appointment of an amicus curiae for them per the following example.

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 presented by the amicus in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).

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 Supreme Court pointed out 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. The Court found the university policy was a form of racial discrimination (since reportedly 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.

The type of race discrimination sought to be maintained in Carlin and other similar class actions, referred to in Busing — Opposed and this Sequel, is no less a form of racial discrimination than was the policy of Bob Jones University. An amicus in behalf of non-class constituents could additionally argue such actions in these cases are even more objectionable because they are imposed under court duress (1) by public officials, (2) in a public school system, (3) upon non-class students of tender age whose attendance is compelled.

The Roosevelt Administration's success in behalf of non-represented