then records the trial on the complaint in intervention (id., 85-96); and finally the opposition to steps taken by the Plaintiffs toward forced busing by appeal (id., 97-99).

Chapter Seven, “Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End Busing,” is inspired by Justice Harlan's interpretation of the Constitution. It tackles the question of what is to be done in the many districts in the country where, queried Justice Scalia in concurrence in Freeman (112 S.Ct. at 1450) in 1992, “though our cases continue to profess that judicial oversight of school operations is a temporary expedient, democratic processes remain suspended, with no prospect of restoration, 38 years after Brown v. Board of Education....”

Busing — Opposed offers one answer by way of challenges by combinations of citizens and public interest lawyers (id., 100-104). Hypothetical steps in each case may be: organizing the parties (id., 104); then preparing a complaint (id., 104-107), intervention papers (id., 108- 111); and a trial brief with constitutional issues to be raised to the protracted judicial jurisdiction (id., 112-130).

Phases 1 through 7 of this Sequel record chronologically the steps taken by the Groundswell citizens in opposition to race-based student assignments in Carlin v. Board of Education. This phase presents examples for pursuing freedom from race-based public school assignments in extended lawsuits.
 

Groundswell Sets Example
for Pursuing Freedom from Race-Based Assignments
under Court Supervision

Groundswell's first step was by my undertaking in early 1979 pro bono representation for this citizen group. Busing — Opposed (pp. 29-32) relates the following major legal steps taken by Groundswell constituents of the Board in the California Carlin case. Busing — Opposed (at the pages below) also poses the following hypothetical steps which might be taken by their counterparts in similarly elongated federal class actions:

Legal representation of proposed intervenors: San Diego (id., 21-25, 30-31, 81-84); federal (id., 103-105).