Busing —Not Integration— Opposed:
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It  /  Chapter Six
  		 88
The San Diego Dissenters' Formula
for Opposing Busing
PreviousNext
      Kalodner, Berger and Glazer, and others, and are raising the question of whether the courts are moving into legislative and executive areas. Your Honor felt you couldn't consider the matter in these proceedings, it was something that you said in your order on page 12, that the argument was directed to the Supreme Court, and not the trial judge. Mandatory assignments are our concern. And I might point out in this connection that we have endeavored to cooperate in every way and not impede the implementation of the voluntary plan as it has proceeded since we have come into the case, and the various questions that have been raised about ex parte contacts; and your consideration of the depositions of the experts. But we are faced practically with the continuing demand for mandatory busing. And the fact that your Honor might continue to feel under the present state of the law that you can't order busing, we are going to be faced with that claim in the higher courts. It is going to be a continuing situation which the higher courts will entertain, and which I think Jackson demonstrated they do entertain even when it is not raised by plaintiffs' counsel. So what we are asking to do, your Honor, is to lay our foundation before this Court very briefly this morning for any future argument. We will have evidence in the case protecting us from the request for mandatory assignment which will come in the Courts of Appeal, and the higher courts beyond that.

      In our complaint we have raised three contentions. Mandatory busing deprives the intervenors due process, equal protection and the separation-of-powers provisions of the California and Federal Constitutions which protect these intervenors from being mandatorily bused on account of their race, and without the consent of the child or parent, away from the neighborhood schools. We are going to offer evidence going to those three matters. It will also be offered in connection with [white flight] evidence which your Honor has heard. And
       
Jackson Jackson v. Pasadena City School Dist., 59 Cal.2d 876 (1963)
Pasadena, California
 
Carlin Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
  
  — Busing: Chapter 6, pages 81 - 99 — PreviousNext
  
Busing —Not Integration— Opposed
Invoke our Color-Blind Constitution to End It
A Reasoned Opposition to Race-Based
Affirmative Action in Public Schools
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr. 		Contents
History of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a pro bono case history of applying Constitutional principles.
  
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation www.EnstromFoundation.org Bookmark and Share