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

Previous Next
mixing is not achieved in sufficient degree by neutrally drawn boundary lines is quite obviously something else.

However, the Crawford Court disregarded this dissent when it unanimously further expanded judicial power in 1976 to approve such busing in California public school systems without the showing of prior segregative actions by their school boards required by Swann. Not only did the Crawford decision lack a dissent, but the contrary views in the decision of the intermediate appellate court below were depublished upon their review by the California Supreme Court.

Based on the Crawford decision, plaintiffs were seeking a busing order in a desegregation case in San Diego — Carlin v. Board of Education — at the end of trial in early 1977. In the course of ongoing proceedings in Carlin in San Diego and in Crawford in Los Angeles, parents and students opposed to busing in both cities faced charges of racism, which the author thought were not only unfair but were eroding support for integration. He felt, in the absence of judicial dissent, that the interests of justice demanded a voice be raised in behalf of these objectors to busing orders, so vitally affecting them, in literate dissent. This led to his article "Busing, Not Integration, Opposed", in The San Diego Union in September 1977.

Shortly after writing the above article, the author was contacted by busing dissenters in San Diego who had formed a group called "Groundswell", from whom he learned that he had expressed a position on busing which they favored but was smothered in the anti-integration charges against them. He also learned the depth of their opposition to busing, which included the presentation in the fall of 1977 to their congressman of the petitions of about 22,300 persons in support of a Neighborhood Schools Amendment to the Constitution being proposed in Congress.

From the above lessons, the author determined that the views of the busing dissenters deserved more appropriate coverage in the legal press than they had been receiving. In August 1978, he submitted an essay, "Court Busing-Orders Increasingly are Infringing Upon Our Liberty" to the California State Bar Journal which, after indications that there was substantial internal support for publication, finally rejected it six months later.

The foregoing events are covered in Chapter One, entitled Busing Dissenters Told They Can Run, But Can't Hide, because during this

Carlin Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court, No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
Swann Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1, 32 (1971)
Charlotte, North Carolina
Crawford I Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
[related to BustopBoard of Ed., etc.]
Los Angeles, California
  Busing: Introduction, pages ix - xiv — 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