THE COURT: The Groundswell motion was granted. The writ will be discharged.

We are having the hearings, as I indicated, to review whether or not the current order should be the final order. And if not, what it should look like after having an opportunity to discuss and take evidence on it....
 

First Memorandum by Groundswell

On March 19, 1996, Groundswell Intervenors served a memorandum concerning the order to be presented re: the integration plan urging that it require that the plan meet constitutional standards.

Our first point was that Missouri v. Jenkins, coming after the motion for reconsideration, was a guide in terminating these proceedings. For that case made it clear that Freeman offered no support for contentions that judicial jurisdiction could be retained until the academic goals sought in behalf of “minority” students were met in the absence of a finding of a constitutional violation by this school district. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Board to see that the school system being restored to its control operated in compliance with the Constitution.

The second point was that the San Diego school system must eliminate racial balancing to be in compliance with the Constitution, recognizing this was also incompatible with the best educational interests of “minorities” by reason of a conflict of interest with their attorneys. We argued:

The record shows that Plaintiffs are represented by civil rights attorneys (ACLU) within the meaning of the article “Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and Client Interest in School Desegregation Litigation,” by Derrick A. Bell, Jr., in The Yale Law Journal, vol. 85: 470, 1976. Professor Bell points out the conflict of interest between the integration ideals of civil rights attorneys via race balancing, and the espousal of educational improvement by the minorities they purport to represent.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have asserted mandatory race balancing,