Busing —Not Integration— Opposed:
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It

   Previous Next


Desegregation decrees differ from other decrees in equity in that their burden, as pointed out by Justice Powell, falls upon innocent children and parents who are not charged with any offending action. That burden — compelling children to leave their neighborhood and spend significant time each day being transported to a distant school — in a Los Angeles busing order disturbed then- Justice Rehnquist. In considering a Los Angeles school board's request to stay a busing order to prevent accelerated "White flight," he noted that order put "White" students "much in the position of textbooks, visual aids, and the like — an element that every good school should have."

Dissenters to busing orders include members of other races in addition to Whites, such as those classified as "Black" or "Hispanic", as was recognized by San Diego Superior Court Judge Welsh in a 1977 order. And the dissenters have another thing in common. Their opposition to busing is not opposition to integration. Their position is as stated in the title of this author's 1977 article in The San Diego Union: "Busing, Not Integration, Opposed."

In fact, it is fair to say that most of the dissenters believe the removal of the busing segment from integration plans will advance public school integration, while its retention will retard it in the long run. This attitude may be gleaned from provisions in the popularly-enacted 1979 amendment to the California Constitution embracing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Its provisions, while limiting busing in conformance with federal decisional law, expressly permitted the "voluntarily continuing or commencing [of] a school integration plan," and noted the compelling public interest in "preserving harmony and tranquility in this state and its public schools."

It has been the introduction of busing into integration plans which has been the main cause of the expensive, extensive litigation prevalent in so many school districts, reflected by the adoption of the name "Bustop" by busing dissenters in Los Angeles. As stated by Justice Powell, in concurrence in Keyes, 413 U.S. at 253: "The single most

Carlin Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
Keyes Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo.,
413 U.S. 189 (1972)
Denver, Colorado
Crawford I   Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
[related to BustopBoard of Ed., etc.]
Los Angeles, California
Board of Ed., etc. Board of Ed., etc. v. Superior Court, 448 U.S. 1343 (1980)
[related to CrawfordBustop]
Los Angeles, California
  Busing: Conclusion, pages 131 - 134 — Previous Next
Busing —Not Integration— Opposed
Invoke our Color-Blind Constitution to End It

A Reasoned Opposition to Race-Based
Affirmative Action in Public Schools
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
History of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a pro bono case history of applying Constitutional principles.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation www.EnstromFoundation.org Bookmark and Share