San Diego Intervenors
Challenge Court Assignment of Pupils
in Carlin v. Board of Education
Toward Restoring Local Control
of San Diego Public Schools

Intervenors prepared presentations which summarized the objections to the plan spelled out in the foregoing two briefs to be made in behalf of Groundswell by its president to the Board at its scheduled meetings.

On May 23 and May 30, 1996, Mr. Lester presented those objections to the Board, a written summary of which was given to each Board member. He called to their attention 63 signatories on petitions presented earlier objecting to the assignment of students solely on the basis of race, as being unconstitutional and not taking into account the individual educational needs of the students so assigned.

Reasons for believing Groundswell's objections were not fairly treated are spelled out in Phase 5 of Liberate Public Schools. Primarily, there was an untimely declaration advising the court of majority public support for the integration plan that did not fairly depict the position of Intervenors by omitting reference to objecting petitions on file with the Board. Those objections were to the involuntary discriminatory aspects of the present program, not to an integration plan conforming to the Constitution.
 

Groundswell Intervenors Propose Final Order With Finality; While Other Parties' Proposals Lack Finality, as Does the “Final” Order Adopted by the Court

On July 11, 1996, Groundswell Intervenors proposed the Court find the racial balancing presently existing; conclude its implementation should be discontinued as unconstitutional; and provide for Discharge of the Writ of Mandate.

Just before July 14, forms of final order were proposed by the Plaintiffs and Board. Each proposed “final” order extended indefinitely the jurisdiction of the Court by failing to provide for discharge of the writ of mandate.

Board's memorandum argued that magnet eligibility and classroom balance rules did not impermissibly discriminate on the basis of race, citing principally Crawford I and Bakke.

The Plaintiffs' proposal similarly made no reference to a termination date. It dismissed Groundswell's objection to student assignment to particular seats and classrooms solely on the basis of race as without merit. It argued “this Court's jurisdiction arises under the California Constitution
 

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

Crawford I 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
Los Angeles, California
 

Bakke 

Bakke v. Regents of University of California, 18 Cal.3d 34 (1976)
 

— Handbook: Challenge Four, pages 55 - 63 —