neighborhood schools under a "desegregation" plan worked out in cooperation with federal authorities.

Interestingly, such school boards face tremendous legal fire power when they seek relief from, or modification of, busing edicts. And the busing dissenters within those school districts who have prodded their boards of education into seeking relief have lacked the type of representation put forth by busing proponents. As has been pointed out, busing dissenters, while individually affected by busing edicts, are not individually represented in the efforts for relief and are thus unable to raise their constitutional objections to continuance of such edicts.

A good example of what faces busing dissenters within school districts opposing busing edicts occurred in the San Bernardino case referred to in Chapter Two. First, the San Bernardino busing dissenters, which the records in such cases show, include some of those classified as "minorities" as well as those in the so-called majority race, must have convinced their board to oppose a proposed busing edict. Then their school board faced attorneys from New York and elsewhere representing the NAACP, an association with nationwide resources. They also faced attorneys from San Francisco from an organization called the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, representing some intervening "minority" students who had the same objective of imposing busing in that city as the NAACP, similarly having resources from outside the district.

In addition, the Crawford plaintiffs, as amici curiae in the San Bernardino case, were represented by Fred Okrand, the lead attorney, and three other attorneys associated with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Another four attorneys were also listed on the cover page (Appendix III), including two from the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice. These two organizations also have continuously had considerable resources, of which, I am informed, the latter then was receiving some governmental funds. Crawford Amici's counsel, in that role supported the objective of imposing a busing edict in San Bernardino, as well as in Los Angeles in their role as general counsel, and, as pointed out above, in San Diego in their role as co-counsel.

These formidable forces, I knew, would be gathered in opposition to the Oklahoma City school board, whose case was approaching the Supreme Court first. But these same forces had also taught how persistence