Bill To End Legacy and Donation-Based Admissions To California Colleges Passes Assembly

A bill that would ban both legacy and donor preferred admissions at public and private colleges in California passed in the Assembly earlier this week, moving the bill onto committees in the Senate.

Assembly Bill 1780, authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), would prohibit an independent institution of higher education from providing a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions 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. AB 1780 would also 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.

In addition, 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, as well as require the department to post the names of the independent institutions of higher education that violate the prohibition on its internet website. Finally, AB 1780 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.

Ting wrote the bill in response to some recent shakeups to admissions criteria in colleges caused by the Varsity Blues admissions bribery scandal and last years Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court case which virtually banned affirmative action in college admissions. Both incidents caused legacy and donor preferred admissions to grow, with Stanford’s newest class being over 13% legacy and USC 14% legacy. Top colleges also are less racially diverse due to legacy admissions, with white and Asian students getting more slots in recent years.

Ting argued that college admissions must be made equal again, with admission not being dependent on a big donation being made or having family gone there before. The Assemblyman also argued that if race doesn’t matter anymore for admissions because of the Supreme Court decision, neither should money or family connections.

“Everyone should be considered fairly,” said Ting in a statement on Tuesday. “If you work hard, get good grades and have a well-rounded background, your spot should not be taken by someone else just because their family can write a big check or is a graduate of that school. If we value diversity in higher education, we must level the playing field. That means making the college application process more fair and equitable.

“I think the irony with legacy admissions is legacy admissions help the families who absolutely need the least amount of help in this country. They are at the top 1%. They earn over $600,000 a year. Right now, it is absolutely odd that we are trying to have a policy that helps them. Even if they don’t get into Stanford, they have so many opportunities. They have a big safety net. We have this idea that applying to college is about meritocracy. It’s about merit, it’s about your tests scores, your grades, and how you’ve performed. And to find that’s actually not the case for about 14% of students at USC, Stanford, and Santa Clara is very surprising.”

CA takes a step toward banning #LegacyAdmissions. The Assembly today approved my bill, #AB1780, prohibiting the preferential treatment of college applicants with donor or alumni ties. The process needs to be more fair & equitable. https://t.co/rsbE3QPQOZ pic.twitter.com/veTHL2erj5

— Phil Ting (@PhilTing) May 22, 2024

While a similar bill in 2019 quickly fizzled out following criticism from Universities, AB 1780 managed to move forward in several Assembly committees in the past few months. However, while it did pass the committees, GOP opposition was fierce. Many pointed out that the bill would only worsen diversity levels in colleges, and that legacy and donor admissions are needed to help fund schools, especially those facing budget issues. As legacy students pay full price and donors bring in large sums of money or add new buildings or needed amenities on campus, banning them would hurt universities across the state.

In an Assembly Appropriations committee last week, the bill moved up in an 11-0 vote, but with 4 abstentions. Similarly, the Assembly vote this week was 55-0, but with a massive 25 vote abstention, showing that the bill is not as popular as Assemblyman Ting had made it out to be. Nevertheless, the bill moved on to the Senate, where it is expected to meet a similar polarizing reception.

“If you are wealthy and want someone in, you’ll find ways to legitimately get them in,” explained college admissions specialist Dorothy Wagner to the Globe on Thursday. “Donations and legacy admissions are just the most open way. And, here’s the thing, Donors and legacy, they bring in a lot of money and resources to schools, especially to smaller ones that don’t have a large endowment. This means funding scholarships, including many geared at minority students. So if this bill passes, it’s just hurting all students in a new way.

“No matter what you do to college admissions and change them, students will be hurt because of it. This bill is no different. They’re trying to say it will help, but look into it and it won’t. There are other ways to make things more level in admissions, but they are going for admission type that gets the most noise.”

If passed, AB 1780 would join Maryland as the only other state that prohibits legacy and donor based admissions to both public and private institutions. The state of New York is also considering a similar ban, with Colorado and Virginia currently having a ban in place only for public institutions.