That order was particularly far-reaching, showing the need for considering our objections such as we attempted to raise in San Bernardino as friends of the Court, in addition to those raised by the Los Angeles Board, to its lack of a legal basis. Two of the paragraphs in that 88-page order provide examples of its commands to parents and school board members:

Page 75: “All students in grades 1 through 9 are and shall be available for mandatory reassignment (under the guidelines) for the purposes of desegregation commencing 1980-1981....

Page 77: “To provide ready access to information as to its efforts and to aid the monitoring of the court, the board is directed to construct a file for each student (“Kid File”), centrally located and easily accessible, containing the same basic information as now contained in that child's file (showing their race) which is kept at the various schools of his attendance.”

— Crawford v. Board of Education, Superior Court No. C-822,854 (May 19, 1980). The Los Angeles Daily Journal Report, No. 80-10 (pp.75,77).

On October 21, 1980, the staff of the San Diego Board proposed a mandatory busing plan for the next largest school district in California. This followed a September 8 memorandum by the Carlin judge questioning whether the voluntary plan was meeting the Crawford I requirements. The Groundswell persons, of course, were also facing the success of the Carlin Plaintiffs' ACLU-affiliated counsel in Los Angeles, and their continuing determination to press for busing in San Diego by overturning any limitation to it posed by Proposition 1. Accordingly, every legal effort, necessarily by intervention, must be made to prevent it.

Facing a difficult situation, I gleaned hope from the following concern