THE COURT: Well, all right. Mr. Enstrom?

MR. ENSTROM: I think that the problem, your Honor, would be addressed by our proposed order, which follows the Los Angeles order in which the court entered an order discharging the writ after receiving the plan by the Los Angeles district. It did not retain jurisdiction.

Under the proposed orders by both of the other parties, they do not follow your order in which you granted the motion of the Intervenor Groundswell for an order re: final approval of the Voluntary Integration Plan and for an order to discharge the writ of mandate....

The Court patiently let me re-urge at considerable length the necessity of discontinuing judicial supervision so that non-class constituents could meaningfully voice their objections to certain aspects of the integration program. I concluded:

MR. ENSTROM: ... And there are many, many students and parents in this district who do not believe in the forcible integration; they support voluntary integration. And that's what the Intervenors are trying to do, to eliminate from the present program the forcible elements that arise when you assign children solely by race to balance classrooms and to balance schools by racial gerrymandering, where a parent [sic] who cannot go to their [sic] nearest school is just as surely excluded from that school on a racial basis as Miss Brown was when she couldn't go to her neighborhood school in Topeka, Kansas.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Enstrom.

The Court went on for about an hour with the other counsel to discuss what to order the District to do during the continuance of its supervision. During this period I finally realized the ruling would follow numerous precedents throughout the country where judges were continuing “institutional reform,” decried in books like Government by Judiciary. I must respect such a judicial decision, as my opposition had been respected by the judge, but must continue to oppose such action here on “separation of powers,” as well as “reverse discrimination,” grounds.