Dr. Foster's proposal calls for the wholesale crosstown busing of young students in Oklahoma City. It envisions perpetual implementation. In the light of the school district's unitary status, the potential harms related to busing students at this tender age must be given serious consideration.... Id. at 1527.

Again, because the adversely-affected students and their parents were not parties to the action, their individual objections were not a part of the evidence and had to be gleaned from less effective sources like the trial court's comment.

On May, 11, 1990, after gaining the consent of the two Dowell parties, I served them and mailed the requisite number of copies of the amici brief to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Its Table of Contents set forth:

• Table of Authorities
• Interest of Amici Curiae
• Summary of Argument
• Argument
• Conclusion
  and
• Appendix

The Interest of Amici Curiae identified the students as intervenors in the on-going Carlin “desegregation” case who were constitutionally opposed to being mandatorily assigned to particular schools, as a part of the effort by the plaintiff-class to achieve racial balance of San Diego schools “if necessary through court order.” See Busing — Opposed at 144-145.

The Summary of Argument (id., Appendix VI) concluded the Oklahoma City students “are constitutionally protected,” first, from being racially discriminated against (id. at 147, para.1); and, second, from having their liberty and privacy impaired by being reassigned indefinitely beyond their neighborhood elementary schools for racial balance (id. at 147, para.2).

Concurrently I received the briefs of the petitioner Oklahoma City school district and respondent Dowell plaintiff-class who, of course, limited their respective arguments to the issues presented by the record.