Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit  /  Phase Four
  
60
Groundswell Intervenors
Again Seek End of Court Jurisdiction
Previous Next

much as $45,000,000 annually” offer a valid response. This is so because the Legislature provides for a fair distribution of state integration funds to districts maintaining integration programs originating under a court mandate, as explained on pages 6-7 of Intervenors' Reply to Defendant's Opposition.

To the contentions that the present “Final Order” should remain in effect, Groundswell Intervenors reiterated their earlier objection to the order's provision sanctioning student assignments solely because of their race and implementing it under the following basic rule:

“In classrooms — other than (ones for which there is a justifiable explanation) — the percentage of students must not deviate more than plus or minus 20% from the proportion of White students in the school.” [emphasis by District]

And we presented a current petition by five residents (including parents with District students) that the Board refrain from —

mandatorily classifying... and mandatorily assigning to particular classrooms, solely on the basis of their race, those students who do not want to be so classified and so assigned, because it does not take into account their educational needs, and is violative of the constitutional rights of such students and those of us who are their parents....

In conclusion, Intervenors cited in support of their motions, as well as the Los Angeles 1981 final order, Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed., 611 F.2d 1239 (9th C.A., 1979) (trial court may not retain jurisdiction merely for matters of convenience); and Dowell (desegregation decrees are not intended to operate in perpetuity).

Intervenors also distinguished Freeman as pertaining to a school district under a desegregation order to establish a unitary system (whereas this district had always operated a unitary system); that when it had achieved a unitary status in the area of student assignments, court jurisdiction could be terminated in that area, although unitariness not yet established throughout the system, noting (118 L.ED.2d 108,134): Next
 


Carlin Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 
  Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed., 611 F.2d 1239 (9th C.A., 1979)
Pasadena, California
 
Crawford II Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal.App.3d 633 (1980)
Los Angeles, California
 
Dowell Dowell v. Bd. of Educ. of Okl. City Public Schools,
(10th Cir. 1989), 890 F.2d 1483
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
 
Freeman Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia
  
  Liberate: Phase 4, pages 57 - 68 — Previous Next
  

Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit

A Long Pro Bono Struggle
Against Racially Balancing Public School Students
in a Thirty-Year Lawsuit
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
  
Contents
A chronological presentation of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a legal battle to reassert the "separation of powers" concept
of a republican form of government embodied in our Constitution.
  
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation www.EnstromFoundation.org Bookmark and Share