Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit  /  Phase Eight
The Struggle Continues Countrywide
to End Race-Based Assignments
in Public Schools
Previous Next

long delay before rejection on February 6, 1979. The substance of this essay is contained in that chapter (id., 25-28) so readers can determine whether they agree with some board members that it deserved publication. Subsequent submissions were rejected by other legal journals.

Chapter Two, “Dissenters' Voices Muted in Legal Cases,” gives the details of rejections of their efforts to be heard in court actions, such as failed initially in San Diego (id., 30-31) and then in San Bernardino (id., 33-40) Superior Courts.

Chapter Three, “Dissenters Recognized as Real Parties in San Diego,” reports first their watch on the busing being ordered in Los Angeles (id., 41-43), and the preparation for intervention by the “Groundswell” dissenters in the Carlin case, which was granted (id., 43-49) over dual opposition by the school board and plaintiffs (id., 47).

Chapter Four, “Befriending Busing Dissenters in the Supreme Court,” reflects the interest of San Diegans in broaching by amici curiae, before the high court their concerns in appellate cases which might produce decisions adversely affecting non-party busing opponents like them (id., 51-56). Then the chapter sets forth the background, argument and result in each case in which an amici brief was filed in behalf of Groundswell dissenters: Dowell (id., 56-58; 59-62; also see App.VI); Freeman (id., 58-59; 62-66; also see App.VII).

Chapter Five, “Busing Advocacy is Understandable, But Without Understanding,” first expresses the author's belief that the zealous effort by busing advocates to spur governmental agencies into enforcing such affirmative action runs afoul of Justice Louis D. Brandeis' famous admonition (id., 67-68):

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.

Busing — Opposed then outlines the constitutional background of pertinent cases, including Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education (id., 68-80), so busing dissenters can understand and counter on constitutional grounds the zealous busing advocacy they face.

Chapter Six, “The San Diego Dissenters' Formula For Opposing Busing,” recalls the steps detailed in Chapter 3 to gain intervention (id., 81-85); Next

Plessy Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 (1896)
Brown I Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Topeka, Kansas
Carlin 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
Dowell Dowell v. Bd. of Educ. of Okl. City Public Schools,
(10th Cir. 1989), 890 F.2d 1483
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
Freeman Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia

Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
Carlin Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 411 (Feb.1998)
[conclusion of Carlin v. Board of Education]
San Diego, California
  Liberate: Phase 8, pages 102 - 114 — Previous Next

Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit

A Long Pro Bono Struggle
Against Racially Balancing Public School Students
in a Thirty-Year Lawsuit
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
A chronological presentation of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a legal battle to reassert the "separation of powers" concept
of a republican form of government embodied in our Constitution.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation Bookmark and Share