school.” [emphasis by District]

FACT NO. 3: The drawing (gerrymandering) of school boundaries to implement a plan to assure racial / ethnic balance not “in excess of 50% White versus other ethnic groups” in schools.

FACT NO. 4: The granting of priorities in the Choice Program to VEEP students to attend schools from which local neighborhood students have been displaced by the racial gerrymandering of school boundaries.

I concluded that an earlier Board on September 15, 1981 had moved for final approval of a voluntary integration plan free from the foregoing objectionable elements, but that the change in this Board's position necessitated a determination by the Court of the issues raised by Groundswell.
 

Shortly before July 14, I received the memoranda and forms of final orders proposed by the Plaintiffs and Board. They both proposed “final” orders without finality, in that they extended indefinitely the jurisdiction of the Court by failing to provide for discharge of the writ of mandate.

The Board's proposal stated only:

It is further provided that, after the passage of five years from the date of signing this Order, the District's failure to comply with any of the specific provisions of this Order will not constitute a violation or contempt of this Order.

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; nor did the Choice program under the State statute, which it further argued was no part of the court-ordered integration program.

The Plaintiffs' proposal similarly made no reference to a termination date. Their first point dismissed Groundswell's objection to student