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