BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 185
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 185 (Ed Hernandez)
          As Amended  July 7, 2011
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :22-14  
           
           HIGHER EDUCATION    5-3         APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Block, Brownley, Fong,    |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Lara, Portantino          |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |                          |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |                          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Donnelly, Achadjian,      |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |Miller                    |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :   Authorizes the University of California (UC) and the 
          California State University (CSU) to consider race, gender, 
          ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household 
          income in admissions, so long as no preference is given.  
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Authorizes UC and CSU to consider race, ethnicity, national 
            origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with 
            other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate 
            admissions, so long as no preference is given, when the 
            university, campus, college, school, or program is attempting 
            to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a 
            multi-factored, diverse student body.

          2)States legislative intent that this provision be implemented 
            to the maximum extent permitted by the decision of the United 
            States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) 539 U.S. 
            306, and in conformity with the California Constitution.

          3)Requires the CSU Board of Trustees and requests the UC Board 
            of Regents to report on the implementation of this bill's 
            provisions to the Legislature and Governor in writing by 
            November 1, 2013, including the following:








                                                                  SB 185
                                                                  Page  2



             a)   Information relative to the number of students admitted 
               disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, 
               geographic origin and household income compared to the 
               prior two years of admission; and, 

             b)   Using existing data-gathering methodologies to the 
               greatest extent possible.

          4)Repeals the authority established by this bill on January 1, 
            2020.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, significant one-time General Fund costs-about 
          $350,000 at UC and $200,000 at CSU-to the extent either segment 
          develops and implements a revised admissions policy that 
          considers the specified demographic factors, and reports on the 
          implementation as specified.  In addition, implementing this 
          bill would likely lead to litigation for which UC and/or CSU 
          could incur legal costs exceeding $150,000.

           COMMENTS  :  In its most recent eligibility study (December 2006), 
          the California Postsecondary Education Commission reported that, 
          while eligibility rates for Black and Latino high school 
          graduates have improved in recent years, particularly for CSU, 
          there are still large differences between racial/ethnic groups.  
          According to the author, this bill addresses the significant 
          drop in the percentage of enrolled minority students at both UC 
          and CSU, which is an unintended consequence of Proposition 209, 
          passed by voters in 1996, which prohibits the state from 
          discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, 
          any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, 
          ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public 
          employment, public education, or public contracting.  

          Although controversial to some supporters of Proposition 209, 
          the U.S. Supreme Court under former Chief Justice Rehnquist held 
          that the Equal Protection Clause to the 14th Amendment does not 
          prohibit a university from the "narrowly tailored use of race in 
          admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in 
          obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse 
          student body."  (Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 539 U.S. 306, 
          343.)









                                                                  SB 185
                                                                  Page  3


          Related court decisions.  On June 21, 2011, the full U.S. Fifth 
          Circuit Court of Appeals refused to consider an appeal of a 
          decision by a panel of its judges in January that upheld the 
          consideration of race in admissions decisions by the University 
          of Texas, agreeing that the university's consideration of race 
          was sufficiently narrowly tailored to conform with the Grutter 
          decision.  The case is expected to head to the U.S. Supreme 
          Court.

          In 2006, voters in Michigan passed an initiative similar to 
          Proposition 209, banning race and gender preferences in public 
          education, employment and contracting.  This initiative was 
          overturned on July 1, 2011, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 
          6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  

          Current admissions policies.  CSU generally admits all students 
          who are California residents that graduate from high school, 
          have a grade point average above 3.0, and complete a 15-unit 
          pattern of courses with a grade of C or higher for admission as 
          a first-time freshman.  CSU authorizes impacted undergraduate 
          majors, programs, or campuses to use supplementary admission 
          criteria to screen applications.  

          UC uses an admissions policy known as Comprehensive Review, 
          adopted in November 2001.  Campuses use 14 selection criteria, 
          10 based upon academic achievement and four based on factors 
          such as special talents and accomplishments, creativity, 
          tenacity, community service, and leadership to make admissions 
          decisions.  Though all campuses use these criteria to evaluate 
          applications, the weight for each factor and the specific 
          evaluation process may differ from campus to campus.  UC also 
          admits students who graduate within the top 4% of their high 
          school class, known as Eligibility in the Local Context.  
          Finally, UC has adopted new eligibility criteria, which goes 
          into effect in Fall 2012, that would allow more flexibility in 
          meeting the admissions requirements in order to be eligible to 
          apply for admission.    


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916) 
          319-3960                                               


                                                                 FN: 








                                                                  SB 185
                                                                  Page  4


                                                                 0002174