Bill To End Legacy and Donation-Based Admissions To California Colleges Passes Senate In Polarizing Vote

A bill that would ban both legacy and donor preferred admissions at public and private colleges in California passed in the Senate on Tuesday, moving the bill to the Governor’s desk for either a signing or veto.

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 has repeatedly cited the high number of legacy admissions at many California universities for wanting to end the practice of preferential treatment. In particular, Ting has noted that while the University of California system does not do legacy admissions anymore, as do all public universities in California, many private colleges do. Shakeups 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 bumped up legacy and donor preferred admissions. Both incidents caused legacy and donor preferred admissions to grow. This included Stanford’s newest class being over 13% legacy and USC being 14% legacy.

Following a previous failed bill in 2019, Ting brought back the bill this year. AB 1780 managed to move forward through the Assembly and Senate, although 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 May, the Assembly voted for AB 1780 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. This was followed up on Tuesday with a Senate floor vote. There the vote was similarly polarizing, passing 26-5 with 9 abstentions. Despite the bill being so divisive, Assemblyman Ting saw this as a win on Wednesday.

In a post on X, Ting wrote that “We’re one step away from sending my Legacy/Donor admissions bill, AB 1870, to the Gov. It bans preferential treatment to college applicants who are related to alumni or whose family can write a sizable check to the school. We must level the playing field.”

We’re one step away from sending my Legacy/Donor admissions bill, #AB1780, to the Gov. It bans preferential treatment to college applicants who are related to alumni or whose family can write a sizable check to the school. We must level the playing field. https://t.co/cYER1bj37p

— Phil Ting (@PhilTing) August 28, 2024

However, despite Ting’s second attempt now reaching the Governor and impressing many education experts who didn’t expect it to get this far, others noted that SB 1780 would do little to stop Universities from accepting the students they wanted. In particular, they noted that even with legacy admissions banned, Universities have dozens of alternate ways to bring those students in.

“Legacy and donor admissions are just the easiest way for admissions,” explained college admissions specialist Dorothy Wagner to the Globe on Wednesday. “Now, it is surprising  that SB 1780 made it all the way to Newsom. And there is a good chance he will sign it. But there are so many ways around this. A lot of these same students have a lot of extracurriculars or experiences outside of school, for example, that would be attractive to universities nonetheless. Plus, every University knows that if you have a rich donor and you don’t except their kid, those donations dry up, so of course they’ll find another way to get them in.

“And I explained this before, but these donors and alumni bring a hell of a lot of money and other needed things to schools. Some donate so much they fund entire residence halls or even arenas. Their child or children don’t get in, they lose arena money in some cases. The endowment goes down, and that also means scholarship money. That hurts many minority students who would have no other way to pay, as well as many lower-income students. Either they can’t afford it or they take out six-figure college loans. So it only locks out more students who this bill aims to help.

“That is the scary reality of this bill, one which Ting obviously did not even consider. We have seen this sort of thing happen at other Universities who tried this out. And here’s the other thing. Even with legacy and donor admissions, it is still merit based. If a legacy student is getting a 1.8 in high school or does not do any outside activities, they aren’t getting in regardless. Those students still need to be excelling and earn those spots.

“What does Ting call it? Leveling the playing field? Well, the bill might do that, but it just changes to a new playing field then.”

SB 1780 currently awaits the Governor’s decision. Newsom is to make a decision on the bill by the September 30th deadline.