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  :  49-28, 8/29/11 - See last page for vote


           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.

          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 
          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."

           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 







                                                                SB 185
                                                                Page 
          6

            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:

            "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 requirements    $75                $150           
                $150             General








                                                                SB 185
                                                                Page 
          7

           SUPPORT :   (Verified  8/30/11)

          American Civil Liberties Union
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
          Employees, AFL-CIO
          California Black Chamber of Commerce
          California Commission on the Status of Women
          California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
          California State Student Association
          Equal Justice Society
          Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
          Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco 
          Bay Area
          Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
          National Association of Social Workers
          The Greenlining Institute

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/30/11)

          American Civil Rights Association
          California Association of Scholars 


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  49-28, 8/29/11
          AYES:  Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, 
            Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Butler, Charles 
            Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, 
            Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, 
            Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, 
            Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, 
            Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, 
            Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, 
            Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada
          NOES:  Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, 
            Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, 
            Harkey, Huber, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, 
            Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, 
            Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Buchanan, Gorell, John A. Pérez


          CPM:cm  8/30/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE







                                                               SB 185
                                                                Page 
          8


                                ****  END  ****