Busing —Not Integration— Opposed:
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It / Chapter Three
|Dissenters Recognized as Real Parties
in San Diego Case
File") centrally located and easily accessible, containing the same basic information as is now contained in that child's file which is kept at the various schools of his attendance....
This meant that the "kid files" of necessity had to contain the race of each student. I later inquired of a San Diego assistant superintendent on July 26, 1982, in the Carlin case as to how the race of the students was obtained by school authorities if not volunteered by the student or family. I learned that in such cases that they were then ethnically classified by "eye-balling" the appearance of the student.
Included among the above guidelines were the following provisions monitoring the activities of the board:
As the Supreme Court later noted in Footnote 7, in Crawford III, 458 U.S. at 533, "(t)he Superior Court (Judge Egly) ordered immediate implementation of the revised plan. The District was unsuccessful in its effort to gain a stay of the plan pending appeal."
Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education,
458 U.S. 527 (1982)
Los Angeles, California
|— Busing: Chapter 3, pages 41 - 50 —|