Parental Handbook
for Local Control of Education
Previous Next

in Crawford v. Board of Education, which had occurred before and after the 1976 California Supreme Court ruling in that case known as Crawford I. On September 15, 1981, the San Diego Board moved, as did the Groundswell Intervenors a day later, to end court jurisdiction in Carlin, but both motions were denied.

On May 21, 1985 the Carlin Court issued a “Final Order,” which included a provision that “assignment to particular seats and to particular classes solely because of race and for the sake of the District's integration plans, as challenged in these proceedings, does not violate the constitutional rights of any of the children involved.” The order also retained the San Diego District under court jurisdiction; and on May 4, 1989 the order was continued in effect without specifying a termination date, upon stipulation of the Carlin Plaintiffs and the Defendant Board, over Groundswell Intervenors' objections.

With the Board joining in that stipulation, it appeared my representation, which could have ended in 1981, would have to continue indefinitely until some way could be found to restore local control to the voices of the non-class parents. I willingly assumed this professional responsibility for parents otherwise unable to be separately represented. As rightly said, “pro bono service is a hallmark of the legal profession.” Also, as a parent I felt parents' voices must be heard to advance the education of their children, as by emphasizing their needs instead of race in school assignments and by enhancing their ability to attend their neighborhood schools.

My own children from 1954 to 1968 had gone through the school system in San Diego in neighborhood schools which were later designated as “minority-isolated” in the Carlin case. As their parent, I witnessed the seeds of that case being sown when the Lindsley Committee conducted a hearing in 1966 regarding racial imbalance at Lincoln High School from which my eldest child had graduated and gone on to college.

I defended the education students were receiving, in a so-called “segregated” school, in a September 18, 1977 Commentary in The San Diego Union titled “Busing, Not Integration, Opposed.” In answer to an earlier article “Segregation Makes San Diego Two Cities” implying that opposition to busing was racist and was in opposition to integration, I stated:

In support of this misconception, which obviously disregards the polls which show that a majority of all Americans favor voluntary 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: Foreword, pages v - ix —

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