BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 185| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 185 Author: Hernandez (D), et al. Amended: 7/7/11 Vote: 21 SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-3, 4/27/11 AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian, Vargas NOES: Runner, Blakeslee, Huff NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Vacancy SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-3, 5/26/11 AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg NOES: Walters, Emmerson, Runner SENATE FLOOR : 22-14, 6/1/11 AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Pavley, Price, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Strickland, Walters, Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Evans, Padilla, Rubio, Runner ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education SOURCE : Author CONTINUED SB 185 Page 2 DIGEST : This bill states legislative intent to authorize the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC) to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, as specified, and requires the CSU and requests the UC to report on the implementation of these provisions to the Legislature and Governor by November 1, 2013, as specified. Assembly Amendments changes the due date of the report from November 1, 2012 to November 13, 2013. ANALYSIS : Existing law declares the Legislature's intent that, in developing undergraduate and graduate admissions criteria, the governing boards of the UC and CSU develop processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable, and consult broadly with California's diverse ethnic and cultural communities. Existing law authorizes the intent of the Legislature that the UC and CSU seek to enroll a student body that meets high academic standards and reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and social diversity of California. Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution 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. This section of the Constitution was adopted at a statewide General Election on November 5, 1996, in which the voters approved Proposition 209, an initiative constitutional amendment. This bill: 1.States legislative intent to authorize the UC and the CSU to consider a variety of relevant factors in undergraduate and graduate admissions decisions, so long as no preference is given, including: A. Race. B. Gender. C. Ethnicity. SB 185 Page 3 D. National origin. E. Geographic origin. F. Household income. 3.Declares the Legislature's intent that these provisions be implemented to the maximum extent permitted by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and in conformity with specified provisions of the United States Constitution. 4.Requires the Trustees of the CSU to report and requests the Regents to report, in writing, to the Legislature and the Governor by November 1, 2012, on the implementation of these provisions. 5.Requires the report to include 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. 6.Declares the intent of the Legislature that the CSU and the UC use existing data-gathering methodologies to the greatest extent possible in preparing the report. Comments Need for the Bill . In the most recent eligibility study (December 2006), the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) reports that the UC eligibility rate for Whites decreased from 16.2 percent in 2003 to 14.6 percent in 2007. The rate for Asians decreased from 31.4 percent to 29.4 percent, while the rates for Latinos and Blacks were nearly unchanged (6.5 percent in 2003 and 6.9 percent in 2007 for Latinos; 6.2 percent in 2003 and 6.3 percent in 2007 for Blacks. For CSU, the rates for African Americans, Whites and Latinos increased from 2003 to 2007. For Blacks, the rate increased from 18.6 percent in 2003 to 24.0 percent in 2007; Latinos from 16.0 percent to 22.5 percent, and Whites from 34.3 percent to 37.1 percent. The CPEC notes that, while eligibility rates for Black and Latino high school graduates have improved in recent years, particularly for SB 185 Page 4 CSU, there are still large differences between racial/ethnic groups. Related Supreme Court Decisions . This bill declares legislative intent that its provisions be implemented to the maximum extent permitted by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger 92003) 539 U.WWW. 306, that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the University of Michigan Law school's "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." The Supreme Court also ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which automatically distributed one fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant, was not narrowly tailored to achieve the University's asserted interest in diversity and did violate the Equal Protection Clause. Current Admissions Policies . The CSU system generally admits all students who are California residents that graduate from high school, have a grade point average of 3.0 and complete a 15-unit pattern of courses with a grade of C or higher for admission as a first-time freshman. The CSU authorizes impacted undergraduate majors, programs or campuses to sue supplementary admission criteria to screen applications. Majors, programs or campuses are designated as impacted when the number of applications received during the initial filing period exceeds the number of available spaces. Each major, program, or campus is authorized to determine its own supplementary admissions criteria. The UC uses an admissions policy known as Comprehensive Review, adopted in November 2001. Campuses use 14 selection criteria, ten 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 states that it does not consider race, ethnicity or gender in the admissions SB 185 Page 5 process. The UC recently adopted new eligibility criteria that goes into effect in Fall 2012 that may allow more flexibility in meeting admissions requirements in order to be eligible to apply for admission. Prior Legislation AB 2047 (Hernandez), 2009-10 Session, would have authorized the CSU and the UC to consider geographic origin, household income, race, gender, ethnicity and national origin along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, and required and requested CSU and UC, respectively, to report on the implementation of these provisions to the Legislature and the governor by November 1, 2012, as specified. Passed the Senate with a vote of 23-13 on August 23, 2010. The bill was subsequently vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read, in pertinent part: "The UC and CSU systems are aware and supportive of the important goal of student diversity and make every attempt through its comprehensive review admissions process. That process considers many of the factors contained in this legislation, but do so within current constitutional restrictions. The intent of this bill would be more appropriate addressed through a constitutional change of those current restrictions." ACA 23 (Hernandez), 2009-10 Session, would have exempted public education institutions from the constitutional prohibitions established by Proposition 209 for the purpose of implementing student recruitment and selection programs at public postsecondary education institutions. (Died in Assembly Judiciary Committee) AB 22387 (Firebaugh), 2003-04 Session, would have authorized the UC and the CSU to consider culture, race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, as specified, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given. Passed the Senate with a vote of 22-13 on August 19, 2004. The bill was subsequently vetoed by the Governor whose veto message read, in pertinent part: SB 185 Page 6 "The practical implementation of the provisions of this bill would be contrary to the expressed will of the people who voted to approve Proposition 209 in 1996. Therefore, since the provisions of this bill would likely be ruled as unconstitutional, they would be more appropriately addressed through a change to the State Constitution." FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Admissions Significant cost pressure: UC and CSU General consideration Reporting require- $75 $150 $150 General ments SUPPORT : (Unable to re-verify at time of writing) American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO California Commission on the Status of Women National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author is concerned that, since the passage of Proposition 209, the proportion of underrepresented students eligible for UC and CSU has not kept pace with the proportion of the high school graduating class they now represent. According to the author's office, this bill addresses this significant drop in the percentage of enrolled minority students at both UC and CSU, which was an unintended consequence of the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996. In support, the American Civil Liberties Union, states "We SB 185 Page 7 believe it is important to recognize the value and benefit of diversity in our society. The bill would give our institutions of higher education an additional tool to ensure that California student bodies reflect our population. Our state can maintain its competitive edge in today's global economy by providing additional resources and mechanisms that enable more California students to reach postsecondary and higher education levels." CPM:cm 8/29/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****