By Mikhail Zinshteyn

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

AB 1780 by Assemblymember Philip Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, would bar private nonprofit colleges from making admissions decisions based on whether a student has ties to a donor or an alumnus. About a half dozen colleges currently factor legacy or donor ties in their admissions decisions — including Stanford and University of Southern California. The bill would take effect next September. Schools that report that they violated the law would appear on a list published by the Department of Justice. They’ll also be required to publish aggregate data about their newly admitted class, including who were and were not admitted with legacy or donor ties, but not in a way that identifies individual students. Students with legacy or donor ties could still be admitted, just without preferential treatment.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

A coalition of social justice and education groups and wide support from Democrats. Bill backers say the bill could influence other states to ban legacy and donor ties in admissions decisions, something four states so far have already done. They cite concerns that the very wealthy are much more likely to be admitted to highly selective colleges. Also, they underscore the chilling effect that last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw race-based affirmative action in the U.S. may have on students of color. If a student’s racial identity cannot be a factor in applying for college, why should proximity to wealth and power, their logic goes. The bill can both be a signal to students that college is for them and free up enrollment slots.

WHO IS OPPOSED

In the Legislature, most Republicans opposed or didn’t vote for the bill. The major opponent, though, is the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the group that represents the state’s 80-plus private nonprofit colleges and universities. The group has “strong reservations” about legislators scrutinizing the admissions and academic practices of private colleges. That’s the kind of oversight that’s typical for public colleges and universities, which receive billions of dollars in direct state support to fund their education missions. Private colleges generally just receive state financial aid dollars for their low-income students. A previous version of the bill would have required colleges that violate the law to repay the amount equal to what they received in student financial aid from the state. That was cut in amendments. 

California’s public universities do not consider legacy or donor ties in admissions.

WHY IT MATTERS

So far four states have approved such bans on either public or private institutions. But because California is the most populous state and enrolls more college students than any other, the bill takes on an outsized role in the national conversation about wealth, race and access to college. Bill backers say it will be a necessary corrective to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ban on race-based affirmative action. If that decision may have caused a chill on student desire to apply for college, this bill would send a welcoming signal in response, backers say.

The bill would again cement California as a trendsetter in state policy that takes on national resonance. The state was the first to ban affirmative action at public institutions through a voter-approved proposition in 1996, setting off a wave of similar efforts across multiple states. 

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom announced Sept. 30 that he signed the bill. “In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work,” he said in a statement. “The California Dream shouldn’t be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we’re opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly.”