California turf war between universities and community colleges needs a rational resolution

California being what it is — an infinitely complex socioeconomic matrix — even the seemingly simplest political issues can become a whirlpool of competing special interests.

So it was in the final hours of the Legislature’s 2026 session two months ago, when the chancellor of California’s community college system sent a letter opposing two bills that expanded community colleges’ authority to offer bachelor’s degrees, something they had been seeking for years.

The bills, Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694, passed anyway and were signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had previously rejected such an expansion.

Chancellor Sonya Christian’s letter was prompted by a raft of last-minute amendments imposing an ultra-complex formula to calculate what kinds of degrees and how many degrees community colleges could offer.

“The cumulative effect of the recent amendments moves us too far from the original objective,” she wrote. “California should be making it easier, not harder, for community colleges to respond when there is a demonstrated workforce need, insufficient public baccalaureate capacity, and students who lack realistic access to a bachelor’s degree.”

That is true, but in California nothing in legislative politics is simply true. It is always subject to what’s necessary to placate myriad stakeholders, no matter how nonsensical or even corrosive the additional verbiage may be.

In this case, it reflects the transformation of the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education’s vision of seamless cooperation among community colleges, the California State University system and the University of California into a three-way battle over academic turf.

The plan spelled out how the three systems would meet the demand for low-cost, post-high-school education: The University of California would sponsor research and award four-year degrees, master’s degrees and doctorates in a vast array of fields; the state universities would concentrate on bachelor’s and master’s degrees in professional fields such as education and engineering, and community colleges would provide vocational training and lower-division academic classes, to prepare students for transfers to the two other systems.

In the decades following the master plan’s adoption, though, this tripartite vision developed cracks as California experienced vast cultural, ethnic, economic and political change and massive population growth.

Community colleges, especially those located far from UC or Cal State campuses, began exploring the possibility of providing baccalaureate degrees. That drew immediate opposition from Cal State, which saw it as poaching.

But Cal State’s system also began pushing for authority to offer doctorates, which drew opposition from UC for the same reason.

Advocates for all three systems muscled up to pursue their aims in the Legislature, which responded with a series of pilot programs in community colleges and Cal State campuses. All were fashioned to supposedly bend — but not break — the master plan’s demarcation of academic turf.

The community colleges achieved very limited authority for bachelor’s degrees in 2014, followed by a modest expansion in 2021. Today they offer more than 50 programs in such fields as health care, industrial technology and public safety.

This year’s version of the turf war launched in February, when the community college chancellor’s office approved programs at three colleges over the objections of Cal State, which claimed they duplicate its offerings. Legislation was introduced to widen the scope of community college offerings and reduce some jurisdictional barriers, particular the ability of Cal State campuses to claim duplication.

What happened to the two bills in the final hours of the legislative session was a partial win for the community colleges. But a complex set of hurdles were added to the bills to placate Cal State, drawing Chancellor Christian’s opposition.

It’s obvious the three-way turf war will continue and become even more byzantine, unless rationality rears its head with a complete overhaul of the 66-year-old higher education plan, which has become hopelessly outdated.