Lawmakers this week passed a bill that would make California one of the few states in the country to ban private colleges and universities from considering an applicant’s heritage or donor ties during the admissions process — a move meant to strengthen fair access to higher education for all students, regardless of wealth or family influence.
However, the original provisions were removed from the bill sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, which said harsh financial penalties for private institutions that violated the law. Instead, the measure would require all private universities — including the University of Southern California and Stanford — to submit an annual report to the state disclosing the number of applicants who were given admissions preference because they are the children of alumni or donors.
“If a university violates the law, action can be taken by the attorney general,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), author of AB1780. “I would expect the AG to make prosecuting violations a priority.”
The California State University and University of California do not give admissions preference to the children of alumni or donors. Some private institutions, including Pomona and Occidental Colleges, have also abandoned this practice in recent years.
Such preferential treatment came under renewed opposition following a ruling by the US Supreme Court last year. Caste-based affirmative action Any irregularity in college applications is unconstitutional.
Since then, legacy and donor advantages in admissions have been denounced by Ting and other opponents who have gained ground in state legislatures, saying these practices favor white and wealthy students.
In April, Maryland Virginia banned legacy admissions in all higher education a month after it did the same for public universities and colleges. Three years ago, Colorado became the first state to make legacy admissions illegal.
The law would affect some selective schools in California that still look at such relationships when evaluating applications.
Under a 2019 state law authored by Ting, universities were required to provide a annual report to the state on legacy or donor admissions. The law — which expires in 2023 — was brought about in the wake of the Varsity Blues scandal, which exposed pay-for-play admissions for the children of celebrities and other wealthy Americans at USC, Stanford and other elite U.S. schools.
In 2023, USC said it offered admission to 1,791 undergraduate applicants who were relatives of donors or alumni, or about 14.5% of admitted students. At Stanford, the number was 295, about 13.6% of admitted students. The share was smaller at other universities.
At Santa Clara University, the number was 38. Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd colleges reported admitting 15 students each who had legacy or donor ties.
All five institutions stressed that the students admitted met their regular admission standards.
Dozens of other private universities submitted information to the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (which sends its data to Sacramento) reporting that none of their applicant evaluations considered ties to alumni or donors.
In an interview, Ting said his goal is “to make sure there is equality and fairness in admissions to the state.”
Ting originally wanted the bill to require colleges that violate the law to pay a fine equal to the amount they receive in Cal Grant payments. The Cal Grant program is the state’s primary tuition subsidy for low-income students and can amount to millions of dollars at some schools.
He acknowledged that without the financial penalties associated with Cal Grant funds, the proposed legislation would be weaker than he initially envisioned.
Ting said university representatives told him they would “comply with the law” if Newsom signs the bill by the Sept. 30 deadline.
Responding to questions from the Times, universities that previously reported using legacy and donor status in admissions, and the association representing them, said they would also comply with the ban if Newsom signs it into law.
In an email, a representative from USC said they have no position on the bill and would “comply with state law” if it is signed.
The schools also reported they had made progress in admitting low-income applicants.
“We’ve been clear throughout the debate on this bill that we welcome this opportunity to give people confidence in an admissions process that is equitable for all,” said Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. “Our colleges and universities are compliance-driven institutions, and if the bill becomes law, they will work diligently to meet the Sept. 1, 2025, implementation date.”
Representatives from Santa Clara University and Harvey Mudd College offered similar responses.
Stanford and Claremont McKenna College did not respond to The Times’ requests for comment.
