Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit, commencing September 1, 2025, an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report, for that academic year, (1) specified information about newly enrolled students and (2) the admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit, commencing September 1, 2025, an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report, for that academic year, (1) specified information about newly enrolled students and (2) the admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report report, for that academic year, (1) specified information about newly enrolled students and (2) the admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report (1) specified information about admitted students, as specified. enrolled students and (2) the admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report specified information about admitted students, as specified. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would make a violation of the prohibition subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount the independent institution of higher education receives in the year before the violation occurred pursuant to the Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act, as applicable. The bill would require the civil penalty to be assessed and recovered by the Department of Justice and deposited into the Cal Grant Account, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. The bill would require funds in the account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be available for purposes of funding the Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report specified information about admitted students, as specified. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. The bill would make a violation of the prohibition subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount the independent institution of higher education receives in the year before the violation occurred pursuant to the Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act, as applicable. The bill would require the civil penalty to be assessed and recovered by the Department of Justice and deposited into the Cal Grant Account, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. The bill would require funds in the account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be available for purposes of funding the Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice on whether it is in compliance or violation of these provisions, and if in violation of these provisions, to also report specified information about admitted students to the Legislature. students, as specified. The bill would require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website by the next fiscal year.

Existing law establishes independent institutions of higher education as one of the segments of postsecondary education in the state.

Existing law, the Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A Entitlement Awards, the Cal Grant B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Expanded Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission.

The Cal Grant Reform Act revises and recasts the provisions establishing and governing the existing Cal Grant Program into a new Cal Grant Program. Existing law specifies that the act becomes operative only if General Fund moneys over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 202425 fiscal year are available to support ongoing augmentations and actions, and if funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to implement the act.

This bill would prohibit an independent institution of higher education, as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admission admissions process. The bill would make a violation of the prohibition subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount the independent institution of higher education receives in the year before the violation occurred pursuant to the Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act, as applicable. The bill would require the civil penalty to be assessed and recovered by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education Department of Justice and deposited into the Cal Grant Account, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. The bill would require funds in the account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be available for purposes of funding the Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act. The bill would require the Civil Rights Department department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website. The bill would require, on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an independent institution of higher education to report specified information about admitted students to the Legislature.

Existing law establishes the California State University, the University of California, and independent institutions of higher education as segments of postsecondary education in the state.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation to address legacy admissions in order to bring more equity and fairness to college admissions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1780

Author:(Ting, et al.)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits an independent institution of higher education (also known as an independent California College or University (ICCU)), from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions and requires these institutions to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

Senate Amendments

1. Insert a due date sure of September 1, 2025, prohibiting an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process.
2. Redefine, for purposes of this measure, "ICCU" to mean a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance.
3. Redefine "donor preference in admissions" to mean considering an applicant's relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the ICCU as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate their family's donor status and including that information among the documents that the ICCU uses to consider an applicant for admission.
4. Stipulate that "legacy preference in admissions" does not include collecting data on an applicant's relation to an alumni or donors for purposes other than admissions decisions.
5. Add to the data set what the ICCU must report to annually to the Legislature.
6. Make technical and clarifying changes.

COMMENTS

The ICCUs. California is home to 90 nonprofit ICCUs. According the to the 2024 Impact Report on ICCUs, by the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU) (the organizational voice of the ICCUs), as a sector, 78% of ICCUs are Yellow Ribbon Institutions serving U.S. Veterans; 75% of ICCUs are Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) or emerging HSIs; and, 48% of students receiving a Cal Grant are first generation students.

Please refer to the Assembly policy committee analysis for further discussion.

The Unites States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. In June 2023, SCOTUS announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, thus ruling affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While SCOTUS did not directly opine about legacy admissions, according to the March 2024 Brookings Institute report, titled, Who Uses

Legacy Admissions, special consideration admissions (sometimes referred by as legacy preferences) have come under increased scrutiny. The report finds that critics say that the practice of legacy admissions is not meritocratic and disproportionately benefits White students from wealthy backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University's legacy admissions practice. According to the report, a recent study of a dozen highly selective, private "Ivy plus" colleges found that legacy admissions are an important mechanism driving higher admissions rate among the richest applicants.

According to the Brookings Institute report, considering family connections in admission is contrary to the mission of a public college or university. The report signals that at the very least, colleges and universities that consider legacy status should clarify their policies for potential applicants and families. Further, the report suggest that policymakers and university leadership should understand that the ending of legacy admissions practice will likely have only small effects on racial and socioeconomic diversity and would be unlikely to offset the effects of ending affirmative action at most colleges and universities. Legacy admissions are just a small piece of a college admissions system that tends to favor students form advantaged backgrounds.

Recent report on admissions. Pursuant to existing law, the AICCU released the most recent report on admissions on June 30, 2023. The report notes that of the 87 member ICCUs,* 10 are graduate-only institutions that are not subject to the requirements of the relevant Education Code. Five undergraduate-serving ICCUs do not participate in the Cal Grant program, and are not deemed a "qualifying institution" for purposes of the report. Two ICCUs (Stanford University and University of Southern California (USC)) submitted their own reports to the Legislature.

Further, the AICCU report found that, of the 70 qualifying ICCUs, 65 reported that they did not provide any manner of preferential treatment in admissions on the basis of applicant relationships to donors or alumni for the 2022-23 AY. Five ICCUs reported that, for the 2022-23 AY, they did offer admissions to at least one applicant in a manner that meets reporting requires in existing law; the five ICCUs are as follows: (1) Claremont McKenna College; (2) Harvey Mudd College; (3) Pepperdine University; (4) Santa Clara University; and, (5) Vanguard University of Sothern California.

*Since the release of the June 2023 report, three more ICCUs officially became members of the AICCU.

Two ICCUs, Stanford University and USC submit their own reports. According to Stanford's June 2023 report:

Most students who apply to and are admitted to Stanford each year have no previous connection to the university. Stanford's report found that undergraduates admitted to Stanford for Fall 2022, both first-year and transfer students, 21.5% were first-generation college attendees.

Stanford also received applications from students whose families do have some form of existing connection to Stanford. In recent years there has been increased national interest in two categories of college applicants: (1) "legacy" students who are the children of alumni; and/or, (2) students whose family members have contributed philanthropically to a university.

At Stanford, "legacy" applicants are defined as the children of Stanford graduates at either the undergraduate or graduate level. With respect to philanthropy, Stanford does not document in admission files the donor status of all applicants' families. However, some applicants' files may contain a notation about their family's giving. In the large majority of these cases, the parents

of the applicants are also graduates of Stanford. The report notes that, "philanthropy plays a significant role in supporting the opportunities available to all students at Stanford, including the ability to attend the university through our program of need-based financial aid."

Stanford's report also stated that, "in our holistic review process, applicants are evaluated based on the totality of their accomplishments and attributes, including consideration of 'legacy' or philanthropic factors, with academic excellence representing the primary criterion for admission. If an applicant to Stanford is not highly competitive academically, an existing family connection or historical giving to the university means nothing in the process."

Lastly, Stanford's report noted the following:

1. Admission. Among undergraduates admitted for Fall 2022 entrance, 263 were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy. An additional 24 admitted students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 287 students, or 13.5% of the admitted class.

As a point of comparison, first-generation college students represented 21.5% of the admitted class.

1. Enrollment. Among undergraduates enrolling in the university for the first time in Fall 2022, 244 were the children of Stanford graduates (again, for some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy). An additional 22 students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 266 students, or 14.9% of the newly enrolling class in Fall 2022. First-generation college students represented 21.1% of the newly enrolling class.

The USC June 2023 report found that their admitted students who have a relationship with donors and/or alumni have academic credentials roughly comparable with all admitted students. No donor or alumni relationship guarantees an applicant's admission. An unqualified applicant, even one with a relationship to donors and/or alumni, will not be offered admission.

USC's admission decisions are made by the Office of Admission ("Admission") through a holistic analysis of an applicant's credentials including grade point average, the rigor of high school, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities, personal background, and a consideration of contribution to the diversity of the campus community.

The USC report identified that for the 2022-23 AY, it admitted 1,740 applicants (both first year and transfer students) who had relationships with alumni and/or donors. Most of the students in the reporting group had relationships with alumni; only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors. It is important to put those figures into context. Those 1,740 students with relationships to alumni and/or donors comprised 14% of all admitted applicants.

The USC report states that, "while we appreciate our alumni and donors and could not exist without them, those relationships do not guarantee admission to USC. In fact, those relationships will not help an unqualified applicant gain admission."

Please refer to the Assembly policy committee analysis for further discussion.

According to the Author

"Legacy admissions have again come back to the forefront with the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning the use of affirmative action policies in admissions. Affirmative action policies are intended to improve educational and employment opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups. With this decision, the concern over how legacy admissions benefit the already privileged has resulted in nationwide conversations about stopping the practice. Studies show legacy admissions practices disproportionately benefit wealthy and White applicants."

The author contends that, "AB 1780 is an opportunity to create a more equitable system for all students."

Arguments in Support

According to the Campaign for College Opportunity, co-sponsors of this measure, "Legacy admissions are known to exacerbate existing disparities in higher education. For example, at Notre Dame in 2020, 21% of freshmen were legacies compared to only 4% who were Black. Similar disparities were observed at Harvard, Stanford University, the University of North Carolina, and Cornell University. A 2020 study of Harvard's admission procedures revealed that legacy applicants were five times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants."

Additionally, the Campaign for College Opportunity states that, "furthermore, an analysis conducted at Harvard University found that approximately three-quarters of White legacy admits would likely not have been accepted without their connections, underscoring the systemic advantages conferred by legacy status. These findings underscore the urgent need for legislation like AB 1780 to dismantle systems of privilege and promote fairness and equity in college admissions."

Lastly, the Campaign for College Opportunity contends that, "at a time when equal opportunity to higher education is being challenged nationwide, due to the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a late FAFSA rollout, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the use of race-conscious admissions practices, students are questioning their place in higher education and the value of a college degree. AB 1780 sends a strong message the California believes influence and money should not dictate who gets a seat at our esteemed colleges and universities and that all students deserve a fair shot at a college education regardless of family background, income-level, or the color of their skin. We urge your support for AB 1780 to help level the playing field and ensure that higher education is accessible to all California students who wish to pursue it."

Arguments in Opposition

The AICCU, in their "oppose unless of amended" letter state that, "AB 1780 again proposes to address the use of legacy or donor-related admissions by creating a civil penalty for institutions if they provide donor preference or legacy preference in admission. The penalty would be equal to the amount of Cal Grant funds the students of the institution received the previous year and would be recovered by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE). We do not believe that it is either appropriate or within the authority of BPPE to take on this role."

Further, AICCU states that, "we are committed to working with the author's office and stakeholders to develop appropriate language that ensures increased fairness of admissions process in a manner that: (1) Does not threaten low-income student access to the Cal Grant program or through other punitive actions that ultimately detract from the work of institutions to recruit, support, and graduate students who have been historically underrepresented in higher education; (2) Recognizes that our colleges and universities are compliance-driven institutions and proposes solutions that recognize this; (3) Provides appropriate disclosures, which could include posting on the California Student Aid Commission's website if an institution offers preferential admission to an applicant based on their relationship to donors or alumni; (4) Clarifies and ensures institutions can collect data on the status of an applicant related to an

alumnus for purposes that are not related to the actual determination of eligibility for admission but are still important, including eligibility for designated scholarships, communications, and/or programming, etc.; and, (5) Sets an implementation timeline that aligns with the academic calendar and allows sufficient time for the review and revision of institutional policies."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

1. The DOJ estimates General Fund costs of $235,000 and 2.0 positions for an increase in workload for its Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES) to review, investigate, and enforce potential violations by educational institutions.
2. The institutions impacted by this bill would likely incur additional, unknown costs to comply with the bill's reporting requirements regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

VOTES:

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 8-0-3

YES: Mike Fong, Arambula, Boerner, Irwin, Jackson, Addis, Muratsuchi, Quirk-Silva

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ta, Chen, Alanis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-0-25

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Bauer-Kahan, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Holden, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Sanchez, Ta, Valencia, Waldron, Wallis

SENATE FLOOR: 26-5-9

YES: Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Jones, Niello, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Becker, Blakespear, Dahle, Dodd, Glazer, Grove, Nguyen, Ochoa Bogh

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0004324

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1780

Author: Ting (D), McCarty (D) and Wilson (D), et al.

Amended: 8/23/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/19/24

AYES: Newman, Cortese, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ochoa Bogh, Glazer, Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition

SOURCE: Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California

Campaign for College Opportunity

College for All Coalition

Diversify Our Narrative

Generation Up

Hispanas Organized for Political Equality

uAspire

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits private nonprofit institutions of higher education from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions and require these institutions to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 limit reported student data to include only newly enrolled students, not all enrolled students.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC); and, defines “independent institutions of higher education” as nonpublic higher education institutions that grant undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, and that are formed as nonprofit corporations in California and are accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. (Education Code (EC) Section 66010, et seq.)
2. Requires, on or before June 30, 2020, and on or before June 30 of each year from 2021 to 2024, inclusive, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the appropriate governing bodies of each Independent California College and University (ICCU) that is a “qualifying institution,” as defined to report to the appropriate budget subcommittees and policy committees of the Legislature whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution. Current law further requires that each institution that provides preferential treatment, as specified, must include in its report, all of the following for the academic year (AY) commencing in the previous calendar year pertaining to applicants who received preferential treatment:
3. The number of applicants who did not meet the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants, but who were offered admission.

b) The number of applicants reported per (a) above, who accepted admission to the institution.

c) The number of applicants reported, pursuant to (b) above, who enrolled at the institution.

d) The number of applicants who met the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants and who were offered admission.

e) The number of applicants reported, as specified in (d) above, who accepted admission to the institution.

f) The number of applicants reported as enumerated in (e) above, who enrolled at the institution. (EC § 66018.5)

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing September 1, 2025, an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process.
2. Requires, by June 30, 2026 of each year thereafter, an ICCU to report to the Legislature, either of the following:
   1. The ICCU was a in compliance with this bill’s provisions for all enrolled students for that academic year.
   2. The ICCU was in violation with this bill’s provisions for that same academic year and reports that it was in violation, regardless of the number of violations shall include in its report for that academic year:
      1. The legacy status, donor status, race, county of residence, income brackets, and athletic status of newly enrolled students at the ICCU.
      2. The admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.
      3. Submitted data is only to be made publicly available in the aggregate and in a manner that prevents the identification of any individual.
3. Requires that the Department of Justice post the names of the ICCU that violate this bill’s provisions on its website.
4. Declares the Legislature’s intent to stop the practice of legacy and donor admissions and protect students as they pursue their higher education.
5. Defines all of the following terms for purposes of the bill:
   1. “Donor preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate their family’s donor status and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission.
   2. “Independent institution of higher education” to mean a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance.
   3. “Legacy preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s relation to an alumni of the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate where their relatives attended college and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission. This bill further provides that “Legacy preference in admissions” does not include collecting data on an applicant’s relation to an alumni or donors for purposes other than admissions decisions.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “California is home to many of the nation’s premier colleges and universities. Attendance at these universities is prized because they ostensibly only admit the most meritorious students. However, some private universities in California still give preferential treatment to students who are related to alumni or donors through a practice known as “legacy admissions.” This bill prohibits private colleges and universities from practicing legacy admissions in California.

“The state subsidizes tuition, research, and the overall development of higher education institutions to promote educational equity and provide social mobility for all Californians. Institutions that give special advantage to the family of alumni or donors are engaging in a practice that directly conflicts with those goals while continuing to receive public funding. This bill will stop the state’s subsidy of this inequitable practice by fining institutions that violate the prohibition of legacy admissions an amount equal to the Cal Grant dollars they receive. AB 1780 ensures that all Californians will be given a fair opportunity to be admitted to their dream school, regardless of who their parents are.”

1. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. In June 2023, SCOTUS announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, thus ruling affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While SCOTUS did not directly opine about legacy admissions, according to the March 2024 Brookings Institute report, titled, Who Uses Legacy Admissions, special consideration admissions (sometimes referred by as legacy preferences) have come under increased scrutiny. The report finds that critics say that the practice of legacy admissions is not meritocratic and disproportionately benefits White students from wealthy backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions practice. According to the report, a recent study of a dozen highly selective, private “Ivy Plus” colleges found that legacy admissions are an important mechanism driving higher admissions rate among the richest applicants.

According to the Brookings Institute report, considering family connections in admission is contrary to the mission of a public college or university. The report signals that at the very least, colleges and universities that consider legacy status should clarify their policies for potential applicants and families. Further, the report suggests that policymakers and university leadership should understand that the ending of legacy admissions practice will likely have only small effects on racial and socioeconomic diversity and would be unlikely to offset the effects of ending affirmative action at most colleges and universities. Legacy admissions are just a small piece of a college admissions system that tends to favor students from advantaged backgrounds.

1. Independent California Colleges and Universities. The institutions that would be impacted from the provisions of this bill are Western Association of Schools and Colleges accredited non-profit colleges and universities headquartered in California. These institutions, as known as ICCUs, include research universities, liberal arts colleges, religiously affiliated institutions, and specialized colleges and universities that focus on the arts, theater and music.

ICCUs are generally members of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU). The AICCU reports in their 2024 impact report that their member institutions enroll over 350,000 students, comprised of 183,667 undergraduate students including 25,000 Cal Grant recipients and 166,199 graduate students. ICCU institutions award over 54 percent of all graduate degrees in California and approximately 20 percent of the baccalaureate degrees. The sector produces 41 percent of the teaching credentials, 25 percent of computer and information science degrees, 51 percent of nursing degrees, and 91 percent of clinical, counseling and applied psychology degrees in the state. California residents make up approximately 63 percent of the undergraduate population of ICCUs. AICCU is comprised of 89 nonprofit colleges and universities in California, 75 percent of which are Hispanic Serving Institutions or emerging Hispanic Serving Institutions.

1. What is the extent of the issue? Current law requires an ICCU that is a qualifying institution as defined under the Cal Grant program that provides preferential treatment in admissions to applicants with a relationship to donors or alumni to report, until 2024, that information to the Legislature. The AICCU released its most recent report on June 30, 2023. The report notes that of the 87 (at that time) member ICCUs, 10 are graduate-only institutions that are not subject to the requirements, and five are undergraduate-serving ICCUs that do not participate in the Cal Grant program and are not deemed a “qualifying institution” for purposes of the report. Two ICCUs, Stanford the University and University of Southern California (USC), submitted their own reports to the Legislature.

For the 2022–23 academic year, 7 out of 72 ICCUs provided preferential admissions treatment based on applicant relationships to donors or alumni. According to the AICCU report, 65 ICCUs reported that they did not provide any form of preferential treatment in admissions based on applicant relationships to donors or alumni in the same year. Five ICCUs reported that, for the 2022-23 academic year, they did offer admissions to at least one applicant in a manner that meets reporting requirements in existing law; the five ICCUs are Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pepperdine University, Santa Clara University and Vanguard University of Southern California. In addition to the above information, Stanford University and USC report the following information:

Stanford University –. Academic excellence is our primary criterion for admission, and all students who are admitted to Stanford meet the university’s admission standards; there are no exceptions. Among undergraduates admitted for the Fall 2022 entrance, 263 were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy. An additional 24 admitted students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 287 students, or 13.5 percent of the admitted class. As a point of comparison, first-generation college students represented 21.5percent of the admitted class.

USC –Admitted students who have a relationship with donors and/or alumni have academic credentials roughly comparable with all admitted students. No donor or alumni relationship guarantees an applicant’s admission. An unqualified applicant, even one with a relationship to donors and/or alumni, will not be offered admission. USC has identified that for the 2022-23 Academic Year, it admitted 1,740 applicants (both first-year and transfer students) who had relationships with alumni and/or donors. Most of the students in the reporting group had relationships with alumni; only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors. It is important to put those figures into context. Those 1,740 students with relationships to alumni and/or donors comprised 14 percent of all admitted applicants. By comparison, out of all admitted students: 22 percent are first-generation college students, 22 percent are Pell eligible, 74 percent are students of color and 28 percent are from historically underrepresented minority populations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Justice estimates General Fund costs of $235,000 and 2.0 positions for an increase in workload for its Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES) to review, investigate, and enforce potential violations by educational institutions.
• The institutions impacted by this bill would likely incur additional, unknown costs to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/23/24)

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California (co-source)

Campaign for College Opportunity (co-source)

College for All Coalition (co-source)

Diversify Our Narrative (co-source)

Generation Up (co-source)

Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (co-source)

uAspire (co-source)

Alliance for a Better Community

Associated Students of Stanford University

California Charter Schools Association

California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy

California Federation of Teachers

Center for Asian Americans in Action

Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants

Class Action Network

Consejo De Federaciones Mexicanas

Faith and Community Empowerment

Kid City Hope Place

Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valley

NAACP Pomona Valley Branch

NextGen California

San Francisco Rising

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

Southern California College Access Network

Students for Educational Equity Stanford

The Education Trust - West

UC Student Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/23/24)

Association of Independent California Colleges & Universities

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Bauer-Kahan, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Holden, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Sanchez, Ta, Valencia, Waldron, Wallis

Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/25/24 12:49:24

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1780

Author: Ting (D), McCarty (D) and Wilson (D), et al.

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/19/24

AYES: Newman, Cortese, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ochoa Bogh, Glazer, Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition

SOURCE: Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California

Campaign for College Opportunity

College for All Coalition

Diversify Our Narrative

Generation Up

uAspire

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits private nonprofit institutions of higher education from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions and require these institutions to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC); and, defines “independent institutions of higher education” as nonpublic higher education institutions that grant undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, and that are formed as nonprofit corporations in California and are accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. (Education Code (EC) Section 66010, et seq.)
2. Requires, on or before June 30, 2020, and on or before June 30 of each year from 2021 to 2024, inclusive, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the appropriate governing bodies of each Independent California College and University (ICCU) that is a “qualifying institution,” as defined to report to the appropriate budget subcommittees and policy committees of the Legislature whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution. Current law further requires that each institution that provides preferential treatment, as specified, must include in its report, all of the following for the academic year (AY) commencing in the previous calendar year pertaining to applicants who received preferential treatment:
3. The number of applicants who did not meet the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants, but who were offered admission.

b) The number of applicants reported per (a) above, who accepted admission to the institution.

c) The number of applicants reported, pursuant to (b) above, who enrolled at the institution.

d) The number of applicants who met the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants and who were offered admission.

e) The number of applicants reported, as specified in (d) above, who accepted admission to the institution.

f) The number of applicants reported as enumerated in (e) above, who enrolled at the institution. (EC § 66018.5)

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing September 1, 2025, an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process.
2. Requires, by June 30, 2026 of each year thereafter, an ICCU to report to the Legislature, either of the following:
   1. The ICCU was a in compliance with this bill’s provisions for all enrolled students for that academic year.
   2. The ICCU was in violation with this bill’s provisions for that sameacademic year and reports that it was in violation, regardless of the number of violations shall include in its report for that academic year:
      1. The legacy status, donor status, race, county of residence, income brackets, and athletic status of all enrolled students at the ICCU.
      2. The admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.
      3. Submitted data is only to be made publicly available in the aggregate and in a manner that prevents the identification of any individual.
3. Requires that the Department of Justice post the names of the ICCU that violate this bill’s provisions on its website.
4. Declares the Legislature’s intent to stop the practice of legacy and donor admissions and protect students as they pursue their higher education.
5. Defines all of the following terms for purposes of the bill:
   1. “Donor preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate their family’s donor status and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission.
   2. “Independent institution of higher education” to mean a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance.
   3. “Legacy preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s relation to an alumni of the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate where their relatives attended college and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission. This bill further provides that “Legacy preference in admissions” does not include collecting data on an applicant’s relation to an alumni or donors for purposes other than admissions decisions.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “California is home to many of the nation’s premier colleges and universities. Attendance at these universities is prized because they ostensibly only admit the most meritorious students. However, some private universities in California still give preferential treatment to students who are related to alumni or donors through a practice known as “legacy admissions.” AB 1780 prohibits private colleges and universities from practicing legacy admissions in California.

“The state subsidizes tuition, research, and the overall development of higher education institutions to promote educational equity and provide social mobility for all Californians. Institutions that give special advantage to the family of alumni or donors are engaging in a practice that directly conflicts with those goals while continuing to receive public funding. This bill will stop the state’s subsidy of this inequitable practice by fining institutions that violate the prohibition of legacy admissions an amount equal to the Cal Grant dollars they receive. AB 1780 ensures that all Californians will be given a fair opportunity to be admitted to their dream school, regardless of who their parents are.”

1. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. In June 2023, SCOTUS announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, thus ruling affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While SCOTUS did not directly opine about legacy admissions, according to the March 2024 Brookings Institute report, titled, Who Uses Legacy Admissions, special consideration admissions (sometimes referred by as legacy preferences) have come under increased scrutiny. The report finds that critics say that the practice of legacy admissions is not meritocratic and disproportionately benefits White students from wealthy backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions practice. According to the report, a recent study of a dozen highly selective, private “Ivy Plus” colleges found that legacy admissions are an important mechanism driving higher admissions rate among the richest applicants.

According to the Brookings Institute report, considering family connections in admission is contrary to the mission of a public college or university. The report signals that at the very least, colleges and universities that consider legacy status should clarify their policies for potential applicants and families. Further, the report suggests that policymakers and university leadership should understand that the ending of legacy admissions practice will likely have only small effects on racial and socioeconomic diversity and would be unlikely to offset the effects of ending affirmative action at most colleges and universities. Legacy admissions are just a small piece of a college admissions system that tends to favor students from advantaged backgrounds.

1. Independent California Colleges and Universities. The institutions that would be impacted from the provisions of this bill are Western Association of Schools and Colleges accredited non-profit colleges and universities headquartered in California. These institutions, as known as ICCUs, include research universities, liberal arts colleges, religiously affiliated institutions, and specialized colleges and universities that focus on the arts, theater and music.

ICCUs are generally members of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU). The AICCU reports in their 2024 impact report that their member institutions enroll over 350,000 students, comprised of 183,667 undergraduate students including 25,000 Cal Grant recipients and 166,199 graduate students. ICCU institutions award over 54 percent of all graduate degrees in California and approximately 20 percent of the baccalaureate degrees. The sector produces 41 percent of the teaching credentials, 25 percent of computer and information science degrees, 51 percent of nursing degrees, and 91 percent of clinical, counseling and applied psychology degrees in the state. California residents make up approximately 63 percent of the undergraduate population of ICCUs. AICCU is comprised of 89 nonprofit colleges and universities in California, 75 percent of which are Hispanic Serving Institutions or emerging Hispanic Serving Institutions.

1. What is the extent of the issue? Current law requires an ICCU that is a qualifying institution as defined under the Cal Grant program that provides preferential treatment in admissions to applicants with a relationship to donors or alumni to report, until 2024, that information to the Legislature. The AICCU released its most recent report on June 30, 2023. The report notes that of the 87 (at that time) member ICCUs, 10 are graduate-only institutions that are not subject to the requirements, and five are undergraduate-serving ICCUs that do not participate in the Cal Grant program and are not deemed a “qualifying institution” for purposes of the report. Two ICCUs, Stanford the University and University of Southern California (USC), submitted their own reports to the Legislature.

For the 2022–23 academic year, 7 out of 72 ICCUs provided preferential admissions treatment based on applicant relationships to donors or alumni. According to the AICCU report, 65 ICCUs reported that they did not provide any form of preferential treatment in admissions based on applicant relationships to donors or alumni in the same year. Five ICCUs reported that, for the 2022-23 academic year, they did offer admissions to at least one applicant in a manner that meets reporting requirements in existing law; the five ICCUs are Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pepperdine University, Santa Clara University and Vanguard University of Southern California.

In addition to the above information, Stanford University and USC report the following information:

Stanford University –. Academic excellence is our primary criterion for admission, and all students who are admitted to Stanford meet the university’s admission standards; there are no exceptions. Among undergraduates admitted for the Fall 2022 entrance, 263 were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy. An additional 24 admitted students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 287 students, or 13.5 percent of the admitted class. As a point of comparison, first-generation college students represented 21.5percent of the admitted class.

USC –Admitted students who have a relationship with donors and/or alumni have academic credentials roughly comparable with all admitted students. No donor or alumni relationship guarantees an applicant’s admission. An unqualified applicant, even one with a relationship to donors and/or alumni, will not be offered admission. USC has identified that for the 2022-23 Academic Year, it admitted 1,740 applicants (both first-year and transfer students) who had relationships with alumni and/or donors. Most of the students in the reporting group had relationships with alumni; only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors. It is important to put those figures into context. Those 1,740 students with relationships to alumni and/or donors comprised 14 percent of all admitted applicants. By comparison, out of all admitted students: 22 percent are first-generation college students, 22 percent are Pell eligible, 74 percent are students of color and 28 percent are from historically underrepresented minority populations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Justice estimates General Fund costs of $235,000 and 2.0 positions for an increase in workload for its Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES) to review, investigate, and enforce potential violations by educational institutions.
• The institutions impacted by this bill would likely incur additional, unknown costs to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/16/24)

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California (co-source)

Campaign for College Opportunity (co-source)

College for All Coalition (co-source)

Diversify Our Narrative (co-source)

Generation Up (co-source)

uAspire (co-source)

Alliance for a Better Community

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

Associated Students of Stanford University

California Charter Schools Association

California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy

California Federation of Teachers

Center for Asian Americans in Action

Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants

Class Action Network

Consejo De Federaciones Mexicanas

Faith and Community Empowerment

Hispanas Organized for Political Equality

Kid City Hope Place

Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valley

NAACP Pomona Valley Branch

NextGen California

San Francisco Rising

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

Southern California College Access Network

Students for Educational Equity Stanford

The Education Trust - West

UC Student Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/24)

Association of Independent California Colleges & Universities

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Bauer-Kahan, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Holden, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Sanchez, Ta, Valencia, Waldron, Wallis

Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/19/24 10:47:14

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1780 (Ting) - Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition

Bill Summary:

This bill prohibits private nonprofit institutions of higher education from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions and require these institutions to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Justice estimates General Fund costs of $235,000 and 2.0 positions for an increase in workload for its Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES) to review, investigate, and enforce potential violations by educational institutions.
• The institutions impacted by this bill would likely incur additional, unknown costs to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

Author Amendments:

Make clarifying changes to the reporting requirements.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1780 (Ting) - Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition

Bill Summary:

This bill prohibits private nonprofit institutions of higher education from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions and require these institutions to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Justice estimates General Fund costs of $235,000 and 2.0 positions for an increase in workload for its Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES) to review, investigate, and enforce potential violations by educational institutions.
• The institutions impacted by this bill would likely incur additional, unknown costs to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements regarding their compliance with the prohibition.

Background:

Existing law establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCCs). It defines "independent institutions of higher education" as nonpublic higher education institutions that grant undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, and that are formed as nonprofit corporations in California and are accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education.

Existing law requires, on or before June 30, 2020, and on or before June 30 of each year from 2021to 2024, inclusive, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the appropriate governing bodies of each Independent California College and University (ICCU) that is a “qualifying institution” to report to the appropriate budget subcommittees and policy committees of the Legislature whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution. Existing law also requires that each institution that provides preferential treatment, as specified, must include in its report, specified information for the academic year commencing in the previous calendar year pertaining to applicants who received preferential treatment.

Proposed Law:

This bill prohibits, commencing September 1, 2025, an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process.

This bill requires, by June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an ICCU to report to the Legislature and the Department of Justice, either of the following:

1. The ICCU was in compliance with this bill’s provisions for all enrolled students for that academic year.
2. The ICCU was in violation with this bill’s provisions for that same academic year. The ICCU shall report that it was in violation and include in its report both of the following for all enrolled students admitted that academic year:
   1. The legacy status, donor status, race, geography, income brackets, and athletic status of all admitted students at the ICCU.
   2. The admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.

This bill provides that the data in the report shall only be publicly provided in the aggregate and in a manner that prevents the identification of any individual.

This bill requires the Department of Justice to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate these provisions on its internet website by the next fiscal year after receiving the reports.

Staff Comments:

The institutions that would be impacted from the provisions of this bill are Western Association of Schools and Colleges accredited non-profit colleges and universities headquartered in California. These institutions, as known as ICCUs, include research universities, liberal arts colleges, religiously affiliated institutions, and specialized colleges and universities that focus on the arts, theater and music.

According to the author, “California is home to many of the nation’s premier colleges and universities. Attendance at these universities is prized because they ostensibly only admit the most meritorious students. However, some private universities in California still give preferential treatment to students who are related to alumni or donors through a practice known as “legacy admissions.” AB 1780 prohibits private colleges and universities from practicing legacy admissions in California.

“The state subsidizes tuition, research, and the overall development of higher education institutions to promote educational equity and provide social mobility for all Californians. Institutions that give special advantage to the family of alumni or donors are engaging in a practice that directly conflicts with those goals while continuing to receive public funding. This bill will stop the state’s subsidy of this inequitable practice by fining institutions that violate the prohibition of legacy admissions an amount equal to the Cal Grant dollars they receive. AB 1780 ensures that all Californians will be given a fair opportunity to be admitted to their dream school, regardless of who their parents are.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1780 Hearing Date: June 19, 2024

Subject: Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition

Note: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Judiciary. A “do pass” motion should include referral to the Committee on Judiciary.

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits, commencing September 1, 2025, an independent institution of higher education (IHE) from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process. It also imposes a civil penalty for violating this rule and requires the Department of Justice to post the names of the IHE on its website. Lastly, it requires that an IHE submit a report to the Legislature if it was in compliance with this bill’s provisions for all enrolled students for that academic year and requires further reporting for violating this bill’s provisions.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1) Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the

University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC); and, defines "independent institutions of higher education" as nonpublic higher education institutions that grant undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, and that are formed as nonprofit corporations in California and are accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. (Education Code (EC) Section 66010, et seq.)

2) Requires, on or before June 30, 2020, and on or before June 30 of each year from 2021 to 2024, inclusive, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the appropriate governing bodies of each Independent California College and University (ICCU) that is a “qualifying institution,” as defined to report to the appropriate budget subcommittees and policy committees of the Legislature whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution. Current law further requires that each institution that provides preferential treatment, as specified, must include in its report, all of the following for the academic year (AY) commencing in the previous calendar year pertaining to applicants who received preferential treatment:

1. The number of applicants who did not meet the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants, but who were offered admission.

b) The number of applicants reported per (a) above, who accepted admission to the institution.

c) The number of applicants reported, pursuant to (b) above, who enrolled at the institution.

d) The number of applicants who met the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants and who were offered admission.

e) The number of applicants reported, as specified in (d) above, who accepted admission to the institution.

f) The number of applicants reported as enumerated in (e) above, who enrolled at the institution. (EC § 66018.5)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing September 1, 2025, an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process.
2. Subjects an ICCU that violates 1) above to a civil plenty equal to the amount the institution receives from the Cal Grant Program in the year before the violation occurred and:
   1. That the civil penalty be assessed and recovered by the Department

of Justice and deposited into the Cal Grant Account established by this

bill.

• 1. Requires, upon appropriation by the Legislature, that funds in the Cal

Grant account be available for purposes of funding the Cal Grant Program.

1. Requires, by June 30, 2026 of each year thereafter, an ICCU to report to the Legislature, either of the following:
   1. The ICCU was a in compliance with this bill’s provisions for all enrolled

students for that academic year.

• 1. The ICCU was in violation with this bill’s provisions for that same

academic year and reports that it was in violation, regardless of the number of violations shall include in its report both of the following for all enrolled students admitted that academic year:

• • 1. The legacy status, donor status, race, geography, income

brackets, and athletic status of all admitted students at the ICCU.

• • 1. The admission rate of students who are provided a legacy

preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.

• • 1. The admission rate of students who are provided a legacy

preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.

1. Requires that the Department of Justice post the names of the ICCU that violate this bill’s provisions on its website.
2. Declares the Legislature’s intent to stop the practice of legacy and donor admissions and protect students as they pursue their higher education.
3. Defines all of the following terms for purposes of the bill:
   1. “Donor preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s

relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate their family’s donor status and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission.

• 1. “Independent institution of higher education” has the same meaning as

defined in current law.

• 1. “Legacy preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s

relation to an alumni of the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate where their relatives attended college and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission. This bill further provides that “Legacy preference in admissions” does not include collecting data on an applicant’s relation to an alumni or donors for purposes other than admissions decisions.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “California is home to many of the nation’s premier colleges and universities. Attendance at these universities is prized because they ostensibly only admit the most meritorious students. However, some private universities in California still give preferential treatment to students who are related to alumni or donors through a practice known as “legacy admissions.” AB 1780 prohibits private colleges and universities from practicing legacy admissions in California.

“The state subsidizes tuition, research, and the overall development of higher education institutions to promote educational equity and provide social mobility for all Californians. Institutions that give special advantage to the family of alumni or donors are engaging in a practice that directly conflicts with those goals while continuing to receive public funding. This bill will stop the state’s subsidy of this inequitable practice by fining institutions that violate the prohibition of legacy admissions an amount equal to the Cal Grant dollars they receive. AB 1780 ensures that all Californians will be given a fair opportunity to be admitted to their dream school, regardless of who their parents are.”

1. College admissions gaming. The Department of Justice charged several dozen individuals accused of cheating and accepting bribes to gain student’s unlawful admission to top universities throughout the country, including the UC. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, University of Southern California, Wake Forest, and Georgetown, among others, were implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. Neither the community college nor CSU system played a role in the mentioned admission incident. In light of these events, legislation was enacted to shed light on college admissions practices in California.
2. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. As noted in the Assembly Higher Education Committee analysis, in June 2023, SCOTUS announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, thus ruling affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While SCOTUS did not directly opine about legacy admissions, according to the March 2024 Brookings Institute report, titled, Who Uses Legacy Admissions, special consideration admissions (sometimes referred by as legacy preferences) have come under increased scrutiny. The report finds that critics say that the practice of legacy admissions is not meritocratic and disproportionately benefits White students from wealthy backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions practice. According to the report, a recent study of a dozen highly selective, private “Ivy Plus” colleges found that legacy admissions are an important mechanism driving higher admissions rate among the richest applicants.

According to the Brookings Institute report, considering family connections in admission is contrary to the mission of a public college or university. The report signals that at the very least, colleges and universities that consider legacy status should clarify their policies for potential applicants and families. Further, the report suggests that policymakers and university leadership should understand that the ending of legacy admissions practice will likely have only small effects on racial and socioeconomic diversity and would be unlikely to offset the effects of ending affirmative action at most colleges and universities. Legacy admissions are just a small piece of a college admissions system that tends to favor students form advantaged backgrounds.

1. Public institutions do not have policies that grant preferential treatment based on relationships. CCCs are open access institutions and do not participate in selective admissions procedures. At CSU, there is no systemwide policy on legacy admissions. The UC discourages such action. As stated in the, UC Regents Policy Barring Development Considerations, “Admissions motivated by concern for financial, political or other such benefit to the University do not have place in the admission process.” It appears some independent non-profit colleges and universities may grant preferential treatment when considering admissions overall. Existing law requires higher education institutions including ICCUs to annually self-report preferential admissions data to the Legislature.
2. Independent California Colleges and Universities. The institutions that would be impacted from the provisions of this bill are Western Association of Schools and Colleges accredited non-profit colleges and universities headquartered in California. These institutions, as known as ICCUs, include research universities, liberal arts colleges, religiously affiliated institutions, and specialized colleges and universities that focus on the arts, theater and music.

ICCUs are generally members of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU). The AICCU reports in their 2024 impact report that their member institutions enroll over 350,000 students, comprised of 183,667 undergraduate students including 25,000 Cal Grant recipients and 166,199 graduate students. ICCU institutions award over 54 percent of all graduate degrees in California and approximately 20 percent of the baccalaureate degrees. The sector produces 41 percent of the teaching credentials, 25 percent of computer and information science degrees, 51 percent of nursing degrees, and 91 percent of clinical, counseling and applied psychology degrees in the state. California residents make up approximately 63 percent of the undergraduate population of ICCUs. AICCU is comprised of 89 nonprofit colleges and universities in California, 75 percent of which are Hispanic Serving Institutions or emerging Hispanic Serving Institutions.

1. What is the extent of the issue? Current law requires an ICCU that is a qualifying institution as defined under the Cal Grant program that provides preferential treatment in admissions to applicants with a relationship to donors or alumni to report, until 2024, that information to the Legislature. The AICCU released its most recent report on June 30, 2023. The report notes that of the 87 (at that time) member ICCUs, 10 are graduate-only institutions that are not subject to the requirements, and five are undergraduate-serving ICCUs that do not participate in the Cal Grant program and are not deemed a “qualifying institution” for purposes of the report. Two ICCUs, Stanford the University and University of Southern California (USC), submitted their own reports to the Legislature.

For the 2022–23 academic year, 7 out of 72 ICCUs provided preferential admissions treatment based on applicant relationships to donors or alumni. According to the AICCU report, 65 ICCUs reported that they did not provide any form of preferential treatment in admissions based on applicant relationships to donors or alumni in the same year. Five ICCUs reported that, for the 2022-23 academic year, they did offer admissions to at least one applicant in a manner that meets reporting requirements in existing law; the five ICCUs are as follows:

• 1. Claremont McKenna College.
  2. Harvey Mudd College.
  3. Pepperdine University.
  4. Santa Clara University.
  5. Vanguard University of Southern California.

The chart below, sourced from the AICCU report, displays the qualifying ICCUs that granted applicants preferential treatment based on their relationship to donors or alumni of the institution during the academic year 2022–2023.

In addition to the above information, Stanford University and USC report the following information:

Stanford University –. Academic excellence is our primary criterion for admission, and all students who are admitted to Stanford meet the university’s admission standards; there are no exceptions. Among undergraduates admitted for the Fall 2022 entrance, 263 were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy. An additional 24 admitted students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 287 students, or 13.5percent of the admitted class. As a point of comparison, first-generation college students represented 21.5percent of the admitted class.

USC –Admitted students who have a relationship with donors and/or alumni have academic credentials roughly comparable with all admitted students. No donor or alumni relationship guarantees an applicant’s admission. An unqualified applicant, even one with a relationship to donors and/or alumni, will not be offered admission. USC has identified that for the 2022-23 Academic Year, it admitted 1,740 applicants (both first-year and transfer students) who had relationships with alumni and/or donors. Most of the students in the reporting group had relationships with alumni; only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors. It is important to put those figures into context. Those 1,740 students with relationships to alumni and/or donors comprised 14 percent of all admitted applicants. By comparison, out of all admitted students: 22 percent are first-generation college students, 22 percent are Pell eligible, 74 percent are students of color and 28 percent are from historically underrepresented minority populations.

1. The Cal Grant program. The Cal Grant Program, the state’s largest financial aid program, is intended to help students with financial need to cover college costs. The program offers multiple types of Cal Grant awards. The amount of aid students receive depends on their award type and the segment of higher education they attend. In 2023, the maximum award amount is $ 9,358 for a student enrolled at an ICCU. Award amounts for a student attending a CSU or UC cover the full cost of tuition. Approximately 25,000 Cal Grant recipients attend are enrolled in an AICCU institution.

1. Civil penalty is linked with the allocation of Cal Grant funds. The bill would add a civil plenty equal to the amount the institution receives in Cal Grant funding for violating the donor or legacy admission rule. In essence as each Cal Grant recipient gains admission, the fine increases. For some ICCU’s this could result in a fine in the millions of dollars. Could this potentially raise concerns about the admission of Cal Grant recipients to ICCUs?
2. Amendments. Several state and federal laws impact ICCU's operations without necessitating the enforcement of civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, the California Ban on Scholarship Displacement Act of 2021 prohibits a higher education institution that receives or benefits from state-funded financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance from reducing offers of institutional gift aid. Other statutes established by the following legislative proposals have similar provisions: AB 524 (Rodriguez, Chapter 268, Statutes of 2022), SB 493 (Jackson, Chapter 303, Statutes of 2020), and AB 697 (Ting, Chapter 514, Statutes of 2019). Seemingly, the goals of the bill can be achieved without having a civil penalty enforcement mechanism. Staff recommends that the bill be amended to:

• Align the definition of “Independent institutions of higher education,” with other provisions in law that compel ICCU institutions to comply with state law. “Independent institution of higher education” means an institution as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66010 that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance.
• Strike the civil penalty provisions from the bill.

1. Arguments in support. According to the Campaign for College Opportunity, co-sponsors of this measure, “Legacy admissions are known to exacerbate existing disparities in higher education. For example, at Notre Dame in 2020, 21 percent of freshmen were legacies compared to only 4 percent who were Black. Similar disparities were observed at Harvard, Stanford University, the University of North Carolina, and Cornell University. A 2020 study of Harvard’s admission procedures revealed that legacy applicants were five times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants.”

Additionally, the Campaign for College Opportunity states that, “furthermore, an analysis conducted at Harvard University found that approximately three-quarters of White legacy admits would likely not have been accepted without their connections, underscoring the systemic advantages conferred by legacy status. These findings underscore the urgent need for legislation like AB 1780 to dismantle systems of privilege and promote fairness and equity in college admissions.”

Lastly, the Campaign for College Opportunity contends that, “at a time when equal opportunity to higher education is being challenged nationwide, due to the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a late FAFSA rollout, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the use of race-conscious admissions practices, students are questioning their place in higher education and the value of a college degree. AB 1780 sends a strong message the California believes influence and money should not dictate who gets a seat at our esteemed colleges and universities and that all students deserve a fair shot at a college education regardless of family background, income-level, or the color of their skin. We urge your support for AB 1780 to help level the playing field and ensure that higher education is accessible to all California students who wish to pursue it.”

1. Arguments in opposition. AICCU in their opposition submitted to this Committee argue, in part, “We commend the author and bill sponsors for raising the important issue of increasing access to higher education among first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students. Today, three out of four AICCU institutions are Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) or emerging HSI. We are proud to serve 25,000+ Cal Grant students, over half of whom identify as Latino, and 48percent are first generation college students. The demographics of our student body have changed dramatically in recent decades: between 1984 and 2022, the proportion of undergraduates who identify as White decreased from 70% to 34.1%, while the proportion of students identifying as Hispanic/Latino increased from 6.8% to 25.6%. As a set of institutions, we strongly believe that a diverse student body provides and enhances the learning experiences of our students and prepares them for success in society and the workplace.

“In response to the “Operation Varsity Blues” investigation, in 2019 the Legislature responded with Assembly Bill 697, which sought to regulate the use of admission policies pertaining to legacy applicants and donor-related applicants. The resulting statute required five years of reporting by California’s public and private institutions of higher education regarding whether they provided “any manner of preferential treatment in admission to the applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution.” Over the last four years, AICCU and our institutions have complied with those reporting requirements, with a total of eight institutions self-reporting affirmatively. It is important to note that the data from those reports reveal that, with very limited exceptions, these applicants who were admitted met the institutions’ admission standards that apply to all applicants.

“AB 1780 again proposes to address the use of legacy or donor-related admissions by creating a civil penalty for institutions if they provide donor preference or legacy preference in admission. The penalty would be equal to the amount of Cal Grant funds the students of the institution received the previous year and would be recovered by the California Department of Justice. We believe that a civil penalty enforcement mechanism is inappropriate and unprecedented to compel private nonprofit institutions to comply with state law, especially considering the lack of evidence that our colleges willfully defy laws passed by the Legislature.”

1. Prior legislation.

AB 697 (Ting, Chapter 514, Statutes of 20190, required, by June 30 of each year from 2021 to 2024, the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the appropriate governing bodies of each ICCU that is a qualifying institution as defined under the Cal Grant Program that provides preferential treatment in admissions to applicants with a relationship to donors or alumni, to annually report information about those admissions to the Legislature.

AB 1383 (McCarty, Chapter 522, Statutes of 2019) established a process in statute for the UC and the CSU to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student's admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators, as specified.

SUPPORT

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California (Co-Sponsor)

Campaign for College Opportunity (Co-Sponsor)

College for All Coalition (Co-Sponsor)

Diversify Our Narrative (Co-Sponsor)

Generation Up (Co-Sponsor)

Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (Co-Sponsor)

uAspire (Co-Sponsor)

Alliance for a Better Community

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

California Charter Schools Association

California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy

California Federation of Teachers

Center for Asian Americans in Action

Class Action Network

Consejo De Federaciones Mexicanas

Kid City Hope Place

Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valley

NAACP Pomona Valley Branch

San Francisco Rising

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

Southern California College Access Network

The Education Trust - West

UC Student Association

OPPOSITION

Association of Independent California Colleges & Universities

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1780

Author:(Ting, et al.)

As Amended Ver:April 18, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits an independent institution of higher education (also known as an independent California College or University (ICCU)), as defined, from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions.

Requires, if an ICCU violates this prohibition, the institution be subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount of Cal Grant funding the institution received in the year prior. In this instance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to recover funds to be deposited into a newly established account at the State Treasury to be distributed to other Cal Grant recipients. The bill also requires DOJ to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its website. In addition, the bill requires, beginning June 30, 2026, annual reports from all nonprofit institutions related to legacy and donor admissions and demographic information.

COMMENTS

The ICCUs. California is home to 90 nonprofit ICCUs. According the to the 2024 Impact Report on ICCUs, by the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU) (the organizational voice of the ICCUs), as a sector, 78% of ICCUs are Yellow Ribbon Institutions serving U.S. Veterans; 75% of ICCUs are Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) or emerging HSIs; and, 48% of students receiving a Cal Grant are first generation students.

Legacy admissions. Legacy preference or legacy admission is a preference given by an institution or organization to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship to alumni of that institution. It has become controversial in college admissions.

Please refer to the policy committee analysis for further discussion.

The Unites States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. In June 2023, SCOTUS announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, thus ruling affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While SCOTUS did not directly opine about legacy admissions, according to the March 2024 Brookings Institute report, titled, Who Uses

Legacy Admissions, special consideration admissions (sometimes referred by as legacy preferences) have come under increased scrutiny. The report finds that critics say that the practice of legacy admissions is not meritocratic and disproportionately benefits White students from wealthy backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University's legacy admissions practice. According to the report, a recent study of a dozen highly selective, private "Ivy plus" colleges found that legacy admissions are an important mechanism driving higher admissions rate among the richest applicants.

According to the Brookings Institute report, considering family connections in admission is contrary to the mission of a public college or university. The report signals that at the very least, colleges and universities that consider legacy status should clarify their policies for potential applicants and families. Further, the report suggest that policymakers and university leadership should understand that the ending of legacy admissions practice will likely have only small effects on racial and socioeconomic diversity and would be unlikely to offset the effects of ending affirmative action at most colleges and universities. Legacy admissions are just a small piece of a college admissions system that tends to favor students form advantaged backgrounds.

Recent report on admissions. Pursuant to existing law, the AICCU released the most recent report on admissions on June 30, 2023. The report notes that of the 87 member ICCUs,* 10 are graduate-only institutions that are not subject to the requirements of the relevant Education Code. Five undergraduate-serving ICCUs do not participate in the Cal Grant program, and are not deemed a "qualifying institution" for purposes of the report. Two ICCUs (Stanford University and University of Southern California (USC)) submitted their own reports to the Legislature.

Further, the AICCU report found that, of the 70 qualifying ICCUs, 65 reported that they did not provide any manner of preferential treatment in admissions on the basis of applicant relationships to donors or alumni for the 2022-23 AY. Five ICCUs reported that, for the 2022-23 AY, they did offer admissions to at least one applicant in a manner that meets reporting requires in existing law; the five ICCUs are as follows: (1) Claremont McKenna College; (2) Harvey Mudd College; (3) Pepperdine University; (4) Santa Clara University; and, (5) Vanguard University of Sothern California.

*Since the release of the June 2023 report, three more ICCUs officially became members of the AICCU.

The chart below, from the AICCU report, reflects the qualifying ICCUs that did provide some manner of preferential treatment to applicants on the basis of their relationship to donors of alumni of the institution for AY 2022-23: Two ICCUs, Stanford University and USC submit their own reports. According to Stanford's June 2023 report:

Most students who apply to and are admitted to Stanford each year have no previous connection to the university. Stanford’s report found that undergraduates admitted to Stanford for Fall 2022, both first-year and transfer students, 21.5% were first-generation college attendees.

Stanford also received applications from students whose families do have some form of existing connection to Stanford. In recent years there has been increased national interest in two categories of college applicants: (1) "legacy" students who are the children of alumni; and/or, (2) students whose family members have contributed philanthropically to a university.

At Stanford, "legacy" applicants are defined as the children of Stanford graduates at either the undergraduate or graduate level. With respect to philanthropy, Stanford does not document in admission files the donor status of all applicants’ families. However, some applicants’ files may contain a notation about their family’s giving. In the large majority of these cases, the parents

of the applicants are also graduates of Stanford. The report notes that, “philanthropy plays a significant role in supporting the opportunities available to all students at Stanford, including the ability to attend the university through our program of need-based financial aid.”

Stanford's report also stated that, "in our holistic review process, applicants are evaluated based on the totality of their accomplishments and attributes, including consideration of 'legacy' or philanthropic factors, with academic excellence representing the primary criterion for admission. If an applicant to Stanford is not highly competitive academically, an existing family connection or historical giving to the university means nothing in the process."

Lastly, Stanford’s report noted the following:

Admission. Among undergraduates admitted for Fall 2022 entrance, 263 were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy. An additional 24 admitted students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 287 students, or 13.5% of the admitted class.

As a point of comparison, first-generation college students represented 21.5% of the admitted class.

1. Enrollment. Among undergraduates enrolling in the university for the first time in Fall 2022, 244 were the children of Stanford graduates (again, for some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy). An additional 22 students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 266 students, or 14.9% of the newly enrolling class in Fall 2022. First-generation college students represented 21.1% of the newly enrolling class.

The USC June 2023 report found that their admitted students who have a relationship with donors and/or alumni have academic credentials roughly comparable with all admitted students. No donor or alumni relationship guarantees an applicant’s admission. An unqualified applicant, even one with a relationship to donors and/or alumni, will not be offered admission.

USC's admission decisions are made by the Office of Admission ("Admission") through a holistic analysis of an applicant's credentials including grade point average, the rigor of high school, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities, personal background, and a consideration of contribution to the diversity of the campus community.

The USC report identified that for the 2022-23 AY, it admitted 1,740 applicants (both first year and transfer students) who had relationships with alumni and/or donors. Most of the students in the reporting group had relationships with alumni; only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors. It is important to put those figures into context. Those 1,740 students with relationships to alumni and/or donors comprised 14% of all admitted applicants.

The USC report states that, "while we appreciate our alumni and donors and could not exist without them, those relationships do not guarantee admission to USC. In fact, those relationships will not help an unqualified applicant gain admission."

Please refer to the policy committee analysis for further discussion.

According to the Author

"Legacy admissions have again come back to the forefront with the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning the use of affirmative action policies in admissions. Affirmative action policies are intended to improve educational and employment opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups. With this decision, the concern over how legacy admissions benefit the already privileged has resulted in nationwide conversations about stopping the practice. Studies show legacy admissions practices disproportionately benefit wealthy and White applicants."

The author contends that, "AB 1780 is an opportunity to create a more equitable system for all students."

Arguments in Support

According to the Campaign for College Opportunity, co-sponsors of this measure, "Legacy admissions are known to exacerbate existing disparities in higher education. For example, at Notre Dame in 2020, 21% of freshmen were legacies compared to only 4% who were Black. Similar disparities were observed at Harvard, Stanford University, the University of North Carolina, and Cornell University. A 2020 study of Harvard’s admission procedures revealed that legacy applicants were five times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants."

Additionally, the Campaign for College Opportunity states that, "furthermore, an analysis conducted at Harvard University found that approximately three-quarters of White legacy admits would likely not have been accepted without their connections, underscoring the systemic advantages conferred by legacy status. These findings underscore the urgent need for legislation like AB 1780 to dismantle systems of privilege and promote fairness and equity in college admissions."

Lastly, the Campaign for College Opportunity contends that, "at a time when equal opportunity to higher education is being challenged nationwide, due to the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a late FAFSA rollout, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the use of race-conscious admissions practices, students are questioning their place in higher education and the value of a college degree. AB 1780 sends a strong message the California believes influence and money should not dictate who gets a seat at our esteemed colleges and universities and that all students deserve a fair shot at a college education regardless of family background, income-level, or the color of their skin. We urge your support for AB 1780 to help level the playing field and ensure that higher education is accessible to all California students who wish to pursue it."

Arguments in Opposition

The AICCU, in their "oppose unless of amended" letter state that, "AB 1780 again proposes to address the use of legacy or donor-related admissions by creating a civil penalty for institutions if they provide donor preference or legacy preference in admission. The penalty would be equal to the amount of Cal Grant funds the students of the institution received the previous year and would be recovered by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE). We do not believe that it is either appropriate or within the authority of BPPE to take on this role."

Further, AICCU states that, "we are committed to working with the author's office and stakeholders to develop appropriate language that ensures increased fairness of admissions process in a manner that: (1) Does not threaten low-income student access to the Cal Grant program or through other punitive actions that ultimately detract from the work of institutions to recruit, support, and graduate students who have been historically underrepresented in higher education; (2) Recognizes that our colleges and universities are compliance-driven institutions and proposes solutions that recognize this; (3) Provides appropriate disclosures, which could include posting on the California Student Aid Commission's website if an institution offers preferential admission to an applicant based on their relationship to donors or alumni; (4) Clarifies and ensures institutions can collect data on the status of an applicant related to an alumnus for purposes that are not related to the actual determination of eligibility for admission but are still important, including eligibility for designated scholarships, communications, and/or programming, etc.; and, (5) Sets an implementation timeline that aligns with the academic calendar and allows sufficient time for the review and revision of institutional policies."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. General Fund cost savings of up to about $50 million in Cal Grant financial aid no longer awarded to students attending ICCUs using legacy or donor admissions practices.
2. Five universities appear to use donor and legacy admissions. These institutions received $18.9 million in Cal Grant in the 2022-23 academic year. Two universities might use donor and legacy admissions. These institutions received $30 million in Cal Grants in the 2022-23 academic year.
3. Unknown General Fund costs to DOJ to recover funds and post certain information on its website. DOJ was unable to provide an estimate, but costs could be above $150,000.

VOTES

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 8-0-3

YES: Mike Fong, Arambula, Boerner, Irwin, Jackson, Addis, Muratsuchi, Quirk-Silva

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ta, Chen, Alanis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: April 18, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0003174

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1780

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits private nonprofit institutions of higher education from providing legacy or donor preference in admissions decisions.

Specifically, this bill requires, if a private nonprofit institution violates this prohibition, the institution be subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount of Cal Grant funding the institution received in the year prior. In this instance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to recover funds to be deposited into a newly established account at the State Treasury to be distributed to other Cal Grant recipients. The bill also requires DOJ to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its website. In addition, the bill requires, beginning June 30, 2026, annual reports from all nonprofit institutions related to legacy and donor admissions and demographic information.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. General Fund cost savings of up to about $50 million in Cal Grant financial aid no longer awarded to students attending private nonprofit institutions using legacy or donor admissions practices.

Five universities appear to use donor and legacy admissions. These institutions received $18.9 million in Cal Grant in the 2022-23 academic year. Two universities might use donor and legacy admissions. These institutions received $30 million in Cal Grants in the 2022-23 academic year.

1. Unknown General Fund costs to DOJ to recover funds and post certain information on its website. DOJ was unable to provide an estimate, but costs could be above $150,000.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Legacy admissions have again come back to the forefront with the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning the use of affirmative action policies in admissions. Affirmative action policies are intended to improve educational and employment opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups. With this decision, the concern over how legacy admissions benefit the already privileged has resulted in nationwide conversations about stopping the practice. Studies show legacy admissions practices disproportionately benefit wealthy and White applicants.

1. Background. California has 90 private nonprofit institutions of higher education. Students demonstrating financial need who attend one of these institutions may be eligible for state financial aid. The state provided about $230 million in Cal Grants, the largest state financial aid program, to students attending these schools in the 2022-23 academic year.

Legacy preference or legacy admission is a preference given by an institution or organization to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship to alumni of that institution. In June 2023, the Unites States Supreme Court ruled affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While the ruling did not prohibit legacy admissions, such admissions practices have come under increased scrutiny.

Pursuant to existing law, the organization representing private nonprofit institutions in California, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), released a report on its admissions in June 2023. The report found that 70 of its 87 members are eligible for Cal Grants. Of these, 65 reported they did not use legacy or donor preference in admissions. The report found that five institutions do use donor or legacy admissions (Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pepperdine University, Santa Clara University, Vanguard University of Sothern California) and an additional two institutions might use donor or legacy admissions (University of Southern California and Stanford University).

1. Opposition. AICCU has an oppose-unless-amended position on this bill and states:

We are committed to working with the author’s office and stakeholders to develop appropriate language that ensures increased fairness of admissions process in a manner that does not threaten low-income student access to the Cal Grant program or through other punitive actions that ultimately detract from the work of institutions to recruit, support, and graduate students who have been historically underrepresented in higher education…provides appropriate disclosures, which could include posting on the California Student Aid Commission’s website if an institution offers preferential admission to an applicant based on their relationship to donors or alumni.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 16, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Mike Fong, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1780 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 8, 2024

SUBJECT: Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition.

SUMMARY: Prohibits an independent institution of higher education (also known as an independent California College or University (ICCU)), as defined, from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as defined, to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admission process and makes it a violation of the prohibition subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount the ICCU campus received in the year before the violation occurred. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admission process.
2. Stipulates that a violation of (1) above, will result in a civil penalty equal to the amount the ICCU receives in the year before the violation occurred pursuant Cal Grant Program or the Cal Grant Reform Act, as applicable. The civil penalty will be assessed and recovered by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and deposited into the Cal Grant Account, which is hereby established in the State Treasury. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, funds in the Cal Grant Account will be available for purposes of funding the Cal Grant Program and the Cal Grant Reform Act.
3. Requires that the Civil Rights Department must post the names of the ICCU campuses that violate (1) above on its internet website. The information must be provided to the Civil Rights Department by the BPPE.
4. Requires the ICCUs on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter to report to the Legislature, both of the following:
   1. The race, geography, income brackets, and athletic status of all admitted students at the independent institution of higher education; and,
   2. The admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.
5. Defines the following, for purposes of this measure:
   1. “Donor preference in admissions” to mean considering an applicant’s relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admission process;
   2. “ICCU” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66010; and,
   3. “Legacy preference in admissions” means considering an applicant’s relation to an alumni of the ICCU as a factor in the admission process, including asking an applicant to indicate where their relatives attended college and including that information among the documents that the ICCU uses to consider an applicant for admission.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Donahoe Higher Education Act, setting forth the mission of the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC); and, defines "independent institutions of higher education" as nonpublic higher education institutions that grant undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, and that are formed as nonprofit corporations in California and are accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education (Education Code (EC) Section 66010, et seq.).
2. Requires, on or before June 30, 2020, and on or before June 30 of each year from 2021 to 2024, inclusive, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the appropriate governing bodies of each ICCU that is a “qualifying institution,” as defined to report to the appropriate budget subcommittees and policy committees of the Legislature whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution;
3. Each institution that provides preferential treatment, as specified, must include in its report, all of the following for the academic year (AY) commencing in the previous calendar year pertaining to applicants who received preferential treatment:
   1. The number of applicants who did not meet the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants, but who were offered admission;
   2. The number of applicants reported per (a) above, who accepted admission to the institution;
   3. The number of applicants reported pursuant to (b) above, who enrolled at the institution;
   4. The number of applicants who met the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants and who were offered admission;
   5. The number of applicants reported as specified in (d) above, who accepted admission to the institution; and,
   6. The number of applicants reported as enumerated in (e) above, who enrolled at the institution.
4. Stipulates information reported by the CSU and the UC must be disaggregated by each campus of the CSU and UC (ED Section 66018.5).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Need for the measure. According to the author, “legacy admissions have again come back to the forefront with the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning the use of affirmative action policies in admissions. Affirmative action policies are intended to improve educational and employment opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups. With this decision, the concern over how legacy admissions benefit the already privileged has resulted in nationwide conversations about stopping the practice. Studies show legacy admissions practices disproportionately benefit wealthy and White applicants.”

The author contends that, “AB 1780 is an opportunity to create a more equitable system for all students.”

This measure prohibits an ICCU from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admission process, and makes it a violation of the prohibition subject to a civil penalty equal to the amount the ICCU campus received in the year before the violation occurred.

The ICCUs. California is home to 90 nonprofit ICCUs. According the to the 2024 Impact Report on ICCUs, by the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU) (the organizational voice of the ICCUs), as a sector, 78% of ICCUs are Yellow Ribbon Institutions serving U.S. Veterans; 75% of ICCUs are Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) or emerging HSIs; and, 48% of students receiving a Cal Grant are first generation students.

Committee Staff notes that HSI is a federal designation defined by the Higher Education Act. To qualify as an HSI, an institution must meet the following criteria:

1. Accreditation: The institution must be a two- or four-year accredited college.
2. Low-Income Student Enrollment: It should enroll a significant proportion of low-income students.
3. Hispanic Student Enrollment: At least 25% of its full-time undergraduate student body must be Hispanic or Latinx.

The graphs below, from the 2024 AICCU Impact Report, show the impact of the ICCU sector for students and the State:

Source: 2024 AICCU Impact Report

Based on the data, it appears that ICCUs are actively working to increase diversity.

The Committee may wish to explore if the civil penalties in this measure are punitive, and ultimately, if students will negatively be impacted.

Legacy admissions. Legacy preference or legacy admission is a preference given by an institution or organization to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship to alumni of that institution. It has become controversial in college admissions.

The Unites States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision. In June 2023, SCOTUS announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, thus ruling affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. While SCOTUS did not directly opine about legacy admissions, according to the March 2024 Brookings Institute report, titled, Who Uses Legacy Admissions, special consideration admissions (sometimes referred by as legacy preferences) have come under increased scrutiny. The report finds that critics say that the practice of legacy admissions is not meritocratic and disproportionately benefits White students from wealthy backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions practice. According to the report, a recent study of a dozen highly selective, private “Ivy plus” colleges found that legacy admissions are an important mechanism driving higher admissions rate among the richest applicants.

According to the Brookings Institute report, considering family connections in admission is contrary to the mission of a public college or university. The report signals that at the very least, colleges and universities that consider legacy status should clarify their policies for potential applicants and families. Further, the report suggest that policymakers and university leadership should understand that the ending of legacy admissions practice will likely have only small effects on racial and socioeconomic diversity and would be unlikely to offset the effects of ending affirmative action at most colleges and universities. Legacy admissions are just a small piece of a college admissions system that tends to favor students form advantaged backgrounds.

Recent report on admissions. Pursuant to existing law, the AICCU released the most recent report on admissions on June 30, 2023. The report notes that of the 87 member ICCUs,* 10 are graduate-only institutions that are not subject to the requirements of the relevant Education Code. Five undergraduate-serving ICCUs do not participate in the Cal Grant program, and are not deemed a “qualifying institution” for purposes of the report. Two ICCUs (Stanford University and University of Southern California (USC)) submitted their own reports to the Legislature.

Further, the AICCU report found that, of the 70 qualifying ICCUs, 65 reported that they did not provide any manner of preferential treatment in admissions on the basis of applicant relationships to donors or alumni for the 2022-23 AY. Five ICCUs reported that, for the 2022-23 AY, they did offer admissions to at least one applicant in a manner that meets reporting requires in existing law; the five ICCUs are as follows:

• Claremont McKenna College
• Harvey Mudd College
• Pepperdine University
• Santa Clara University
• Vanguard University of Sothern California

*Committee Staff notes that since the release of the June 2023 report, three more ICCUs officially became members of the AICCU.

The chart below, from the AICCU report, reflects the qualifying ICCUs that did provide some manner of preferential treatment to applicants on the basis of their relationship to donors of alumni of the institution for AY 2022-23: Two ICCUs, Stanford University and USC submit their own reports. According to Stanford’s June 2023 report:

Most students who apply to and are admitted to Stanford each year have no previous connection to the university. Stanford’s report found that undergraduates admitted to Stanford for Fall 2022, both first-year and transfer students, 21.5% were first-generation college attendees.

Stanford also received applications from students whose families do have some form of existing connection to Stanford. In recent years there has been increased national interest in two categories of college applicants: (1) “legacy” students who are the children of alumni; and/or, (2) students whose family members have contributed philanthropically to a university.

At Stanford, “legacy” applicants are defined as the children of Stanford graduates at either the undergraduate or graduate level. With respect to philanthropy, Stanford does not document in admission files the donor status of all applicants’ families. However, some applicants’ files may contain a notation about their family’s giving. In the large majority of these cases, the parents

of the applicants are also graduates of Stanford. The report notes that, “philanthropy plays a significant role in supporting the opportunities available to all students at Stanford, including the ability to attend the university through our program of need-based financial aid.”

Stanford’s report also stated that, “in our holistic review process, applicants are evaluated based on the totality of their accomplishments and attributes, including consideration of ‘legacy’ or philanthropic factors, with academic excellence representing the primary criterion for admission. If an applicant to Stanford is not highly competitive academically, an existing family connection or historical giving to the university means nothing in the process.”

Lastly, Stanford’s report noted the following:

1. Admission. Among undergraduates admitted for Fall 2022 entrance, 263 were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy. An additional 24 admitted students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 287 students, or 13.5% of the admitted class.

As a point of comparison, first-generation college students represented 21.5% of the admitted class.

1. Enrollment. Among undergraduates enrolling in the university for the first time in Fall 2022, 244 were the children of Stanford graduates (again, for some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of family philanthropy). An additional 22 students had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of family philanthropy that could be considered along with all other factors in the admission process. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 266 students, or 14.9% of the newly enrolling class in Fall 2022.

Committee Staff understands that first-generation college students represented 21.1% of the newly enrolling class.

The USC June 2023 report found that their admitted students who have a relationship with donors and/or alumni have academic credentials roughly comparable with all admitted students. No donor or alumni relationship guarantees an applicant’s admission. An unqualified applicant, even one with a relationship to donors and/or alumni, will not be offered admission.

USC’s admission decisions are made by the Office of Admission (“Admission”) through a holistic analysis of an applicant’s credentials including grade point average, the rigor of high school, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities, personal background, and a consideration of contribution to the diversity of the campus community.

The USC report identified that for the 2022-23 AY, it admitted 1,740 applicants (both first year and transfer students) who had relationships with alumni and/or donors. Most of the students in the reporting group had relationships with alumni; only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors. It is important to put those figures into context. Those 1,740 students with relationships to alumni and/or donors comprised 14% of all admitted applicants. By comparison, out of all admitted students:

1. 12% are California Community College transfers;
2. 22% are first-generation college students;
3. 22% are students eligible for Pell Grants;
4. 28% are under-represented minority students;
5. 45% are California residents; and,
6. 74% are students of color.

The USC report states that, “while we appreciate our alumni and donors and could not exist without them, those relationships do not guarantee admission to USC. In fact, those relationships will not help an unqualified applicant gain admission.” The narrative below, reflects all the findings from the report.

1. The number of applicants with alumni/donor relationships who did not meet the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants, but who were offered admission: One student - the student, a Syrian refugee, could not provide official proof of high school graduation. However, USC notes it had no reason to believe that the student did not graduate;
2. The number of applicants reported pursuant to paragraph (1) who accepted admission to the institution: One student.
3. The number of applicants reported pursuant to paragraph (2) who enrolled at the Institution: One student.
4. The number of applicants with alumni/donor relationships who met the institution’s admission standards that apply to all applicants and who were offered admission: 1,739.
5. Freshman (alumni-related): 992
6. Freshman (non-alumni, donor-related): 52
7. Transfer (alumni-related): 680
8. Transfer (non-alumni, donor-related): 15
9. The number of applicants reported pursuant to paragraph (4) who accepted admission to the institution: 1,192.
10. Freshman (alumni-related): 560
11. Freshman (non-alumni, donor-related): 42
12. Transfer (alumni-related): 575
13. Transfer (non-alumni, donor-related): 15
14. The number of applicants reported pursuant to paragraph (5) who enrolled at the

Institution: 1,125.

1. Freshman (alumni-related): 532
2. Freshman (non-alumni, donor-related): 42
3. Transfer (alumni-related): 536
4. Transfer (non-alumni, donor-related): 15

Committee comments and amendments. The measure currently stipulates that violation of the provision of this measure, as specified, will result in a civil penalty equal to the amount the ICCU campus receives in the year before the violation occurred pursuant to the Cal Grant Program. Further, the measure stipulates that the civil penalty must be assessed and recovered by the BPPE and deposited into the established Cal Grant Account. However, all ICCUs that are fully accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (the premier accrediting body for this region of the nation) are exempt from the BPPE. Further, the measure requires that the Civil Rights Department to post the names of the ICCU campuses that violate the provisions of this measure on its internet website, based on information provided to the Department by the BPPE.

With the above in mind, Committee Staff recommends, and the author as agreed, to accept the following amendment, which removes the BPPE as the entity to assess and recover funds.

Section 66018.45 (d) A violation of subdivision (c) shall result in a civil penalty equal to the amount the independent institution of higher education receives in the year before the violation occurred pursuant to the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program (Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 69430) of Part 42) or the Cal Grant Reform Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 69405) of Part 42), as applicable. The civil penalty shall be assessed and recovered by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education California Department of Justice and deposited into the Cal Grant Account, which is hereby established in the State Treasury.

(e) The Civil Rights Department shall post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate subdivision (c) on its internet website. The information shall be provided to the Civil Rights Department by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education.

The California Department of Justice shall post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate subdivision (c) on its internet website.

Further, the measure requires that on or before June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, an ICCU campus must report to the Legislature on specified demographics of all admitted students at ICCU campuses and specified demographics of the admission rate of students who are provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions, as compared to the admission rate of students who are not provided a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions.

It is presently not clear why the report would be needed annually in perpetuity.

Moving forward the author may wish to include a sunset of the annual report.

Lastly, Committee Staff understands that the mandated demographics for admitted students, may not presently exist and could pose a challenge to implement.

Moving forward, the author may wish work with the appropriate stakeholders in order to determine the best data collection that may already exist and accomplish the goals of the measure.

Arguments in support. According to the Campaign for College Opportunity, co-sponsors of this measure, “Legacy admissions are known to exacerbate existing disparities in higher education. For example, at Notre Dame in 2020, 21% of freshmen were legacies compared to only 4% who were Black. Similar disparities were observed at Harvard, Stanford University, the University of North Carolina, and Cornell University. A 2020 study of Harvard’s admission procedures revealed that legacy applicants were five times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants.”

Additionally, the Campaign for College Opportunity states that, “furthermore, an analysis conducted at Harvard University found that approximately three-quarters of White legacy admits would likely not have been accepted without their connections, underscoring the systemic advantages conferred by legacy status. These findings underscore the urgent need for legislation like AB 1780 to dismantle systems of privilege and promote fairness and equity in college admissions.”

Lastly, the Campaign for College Opportunity contends that, “at a time when equal opportunity to higher education is being challenged nationwide, due to the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a late FAFSA rollout, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the use of race-conscious admissions practices, students are questioning their place in higher education and the value of a college degree. AB 1780 sends a strong message the California believes influence and money should not dictate who gets a seat at our esteemed colleges and universities and that all students deserve a fair shot at a college education regardless of family background, income-level, or the color of their skin. We urge your support for AB 1780 to help level the playing field and ensure that higher education is accessible to all California students who wish to pursue it.”

Arguments in concern. The AICCU, in their “oppose unless of amended” letter state that, “AB 1780 again proposes to address the use of legacy or donor-related admissions by creating a civil penalty for institutions if they provide donor preference or legacy preference in admission. The penalty would be equal to the amount of Cal Grant funds the students of the institution received the previous year and would be recovered by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE). We do not believe that it is either appropriate or within the authority of BPPE to take on this role.”

Further, AICCU states that, “we are committed to working with the author’s office and stakeholders to develop appropriate language that ensures increased fairness of admissions process in a manner that: (1) Does not threaten low-income student access to the Cal Grant program or through other punitive actions that ultimately detract from the work of institutions to recruit, support, and graduate students who have been historically underrepresented in higher education; (2) Recognizes that our colleges and universities are compliance-driven institutions and proposes solutions that recognize this; (3) Provides appropriate disclosures, which could include posting on the California Student Aid Commission’s website if an institution offers preferential admission to an applicant based on their relationship to donors or alumni; (4) Clarifies and ensures institutions can collect data on the status of an applicant related to an

alumnus for purposes that are not related to the actual determination of eligibility for admission but are still important, including eligibility for designated scholarships, communications, and/or programming, etc.; and, (5) Sets an implementation timeline that aligns with the academic calendar and allows sufficient time for the review and revision of institutional policies.”

Prior legislation. AB 697 (Ting), Chapter 514, Statutes of 2019, requires, by June 30 of each year from 2021 to 2024, the CSU Trustees, the UC Regents, and the appropriate governing bodies of each ICCU that is a qualifying institution as defined under the Cal Grant Program that provides preferential treatment in admissions to applicants with a relationship to donors or alumni, to annually report information about those admissions to the Legislature.

AB 1383 (McCarty), Chapter 522, Statutes of 2019, establishes a process in statute for the UC and the CSU to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student's admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California (Co-Sponsor)
Campaign for College Opportunity (Co-Sponsor)
AAPI Equity Alliance
Alliance for a Better Community
California Charter Schools Association (CCSA)
Center for Asian Americans in Action
Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants
College for All Coalition
Diversify Our Narrative
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC) Fiscally Sponsored by Community Partners
Faith and Community Empowerment
Generation Up
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE)
Kid City Hope Place
Koreatown Youth and Community Center
Latino and Latina Roundtable of The San Gabriel and Pomona Valley
Los Angeles United Methodist Urban Foundation
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Thai Community Development Center
uAspire
University of California Student Association

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960