California Becomes Fifth State To Ban Legacy Admissions Preferences

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 1780, which prohibits legacy and donor preferences in the admissions decisions of the state’s private, nonprofit institutions.

“In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work. 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,” said Newsom in a release by his office.

With Newsom’s signature of the bill, California becomes the fifth state to enact some type of ban against colleges giving an advantage to the relatives of alumni or institutional donors. In August, Illinois became the fourth state to pass a legacy admission prohibition, following Maryland, which enacted a legacy admission ban in April that applies to both public and private colleges. Colorado passed its ban in 2021, and Virginia did so earlier this year.

Introduced by California Assemblymember Phil Ting, the bill went through significant revisions from earlier versions. Originally, it would have prohibited the state’s private universities from receiving funds through the Cal Grant student financial aid program if they gave preferential admissions treatment to applicants who had donor or alumni connections. That provision was later amended so that a school that extended a legacy or donor preference would have faced a civil fine equal to the amount of Cal Grants it received in the prior year.

But that penalty was removed from the bill as well before its final passage. Now an institution that violates the ban is required to report annually to the Legislature and the California Department of Justice whether it is in compliance or violation of the bill’s provisions, and if in violation, to also report, for that academic year, the admission rates of students receiving a legacy or donor “bump” compared to the remainder of the student body. They would also be required to report on the racial, geographic and financial diversity of admitted students, in addition to their athletic status.

California’s public colleges and universities currently do not consider family or donor connections in their admission processes. However, according to Assemblymember Ting’s office, reports submitted to the state legislature showed that for the Fall of 2023, six California colleges and universities gave preferential treatment to candidates related to graduates and donors. The University of Southern California had the most, admitting 1,791 students in that category, while Stanford had 295. Santa Clara University had 38. Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd each had 15 students. Northeastern had less than ten.

“If we value diversity in higher education, we must level the playing field. That means making the college application process more fair and equitable. Hard work, good grades and a well-rounded background should earn you a spot in the incoming class – not the size of the check your family can write or who you’re related to. I thank the Governor for agreeing with me and supporters of AB 1780 – that every student deserves a fair shot at their dream school,” said Ting.

Class Action, a grassroots student organization that lobbied on behalf of the bill, praised Newsom for signing AB 1780 into law in a press release: “In opposing legacy preference, Governor Newsom now stands with 75 percent of the American public, 75 percent of college students, 89 percent of college admissions directors, and the Stanford Undergraduate and Graduate Senates. This is a victory for students across the country who cannot rely on family connections and net worth to access top colleges and universities.”

While the fairness of legacy preferences has been challenged for years, pressure against the practice has been building ever since the Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina finding race-conscious admissions to be unconstitutional.

That ruling brought greater scrutiny to the racial implications of legacy advantages as practiced by highly selective institutions. For example, the percentage of freshmen admitted at several selective colleges via the legacy route exceeds the percentage of entering freshmen who are Black, according to a report by Education Reform Now. At many of these colleges, three-quarters or more of the legacy applicants receiving acceptances are white.

Those kinds of results have prompted an obvious question: If colleges are required to practice race-neutral admissions policies, why should they be permitted to extend involving legacy or donor preferences that appear to discriminate against nonwhite students? Yesterday, California became the fifth state to say they shouldn’t.