Groundswell Intervenors Support
Challenge to Busing Order,
in Freeman v. Pitts, a Class Action,
to Restore Local Control of Student Assignment

The approach Lee urged upon the court was for it to look at what caused the segregation in question. If you do that, he said, Pasadena... disposes of both issues in this case. First, he said, the demographic shifts are not attributable to DCSS, and thus should not reflect upon its unitary status. Second, the non-attainment of one factor in Pasadena did not require an overall change in the other factors.

Lee shifted gears and closed with a discussion of federalism and the efficient allocation of resources. Under Dowell, he said, school systems should be run by local governing bodies, and not federal courts. For 22 years, DCSS has been trying to obey the law, but now, due to circumstances beyond its control, it is being told it will have to continue under court supervision for an indefinite length of time. Under the Eleventh Circuit's opinion, Lee noted, his clients are looking to more busing and radical gerrymandering....

Christopher A. Hanson, of New York, argued on behalf of the black student plaintiffs. In his opening remarks, he noted that the county was purposely segregated even after Brown, that, as the district court found, the system was never fully desegregated, and that the schools today are both separate and unequal with fewer resources being spent on black students.

What if all the Green factors are satisfied Stevens asked, but a student imbalance remains?

It is the duty of the board, Hanson answered, to break the pattern of segregation....

In response to a question by Stevens dealing with the difficulty DCSS may have desegregating at this point, Hanson said that if the job is harder today, “that's the board's fault.” Had the board followed the mandate of Brown or the decrees when they were handed down, the system would already be desegregated and there would be no problem....

In rebuttal, Lee said it is easy to suggest what should have been done in the past. But, he continued, the district court said nothing would have worked. Furthermore, nothing in the court of appeals' opinion indicates anything could have been done by the board. This case is not fact specific, Lee said, it's legal. The students have
 

Brown I 

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Topeka, Kansas
 

Jackson 

Jackson v. Pasadena City School Dist., 59 Cal.2d 876 (1963)
Pasadena, California
 

Green 

Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968)
New Kent County, Virginia
 

Dowell 

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1990)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
 

Freeman 

Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia
Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
 

— Handbook: Challenge Three, pages 45 - 54 —