Parental Handbook
for Local Control of Education  /  Challenge Two

San Diego Parents Challenge
Busing of Their Children,
in Carlin v. Board of Education,
as Intervenors in this Class Action

Previous Next

“protect us from the request for mandatory assignment which will come in the Courts of Appeal, and the higher courts beyond that.”

The Court took judicial notice of several cases upon which the Carlin Plaintiffs relied for the judicial authority for busing, which I offered to show they had been decided by a course in which there was no separate representation of the interest now presented by Intervenors. A declaration by the Groundswell president, to which all counsel stipulated he would so testify, emphasized this point, first, by stating he had supported initiative Proposition 21 adopted November 7, 1972 which provided:

No public student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school.

Then, the following portions of his testimony showed how he had been left out of the process leading to the mandatory busing his children were facing:

3. That upon the passage of Prop. 21, he was not aware of any proposals, law or court ruling which would mandate the assignment of his children, because of their race, to some school away from their nearest neighborhood school wherever they might choose to live; and had he known of such he would have exercised every right available to him as an elector and taxpayer in opposition thereto.

4. That his children, one of whom is an intervenor, continuously attended their neighborhood schools.

5. That he first learned in the spring of 1977 of activities arising in their schools from the Carlin case that his children might be subjected to forced busing.

6. That he also learned of the case of Crawford I and did not believe his interests and those of his children and others similarly situated were represented in the course of the proceedings leading to that decision....

Then the Groundswell president established the existence of individual opposition to the proposed busing by (1) taxpayers-parents, (2) students, and (3) taxpayers-voters by the presentation of their petitions (with about 5,983 signatories, of whom 1,856 were children) to the defendant Board, as follows: Next


Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California

Crawford I 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
[related to BustopBoard of Ed., etc.]
Los Angeles, California


Handbook: Challenge Two, pages 33 - 43 —

Previous Next

Parental Handbook
For Parents Dedicated to Local Control
of Public Education of Children
According to the Constitution
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
Challenges of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
an exemplar of citizens reasserting Constitutional rights.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation Bookmark and Share