BILL ANALYSIS
ACA 23
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Anthony Portantino, Chair
ACA 23 (Hernandez) - As Introduced: May 4, 2009
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education: student recruitment
and retention.
SUMMARY : Establishes an exemption from the California
Constitutional prohibition granting preferential treatment to
any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in public education for the
purposes of implementing student recruitment and selection
programs at public postsecondary education institutions that are
permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
EXISTING LAW , established when California voters approved
Proposition 209 in 1996, 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 (California Constitution,
Article I, Section 31).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Double-referral : This Constitutional amendment has
been double-referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. This
analysis will focus only on the higher education provisions and
does not discuss legal issues.
Background : The California Postsecondary Education Commission's
most recent eligibility report (March 2009) found that the
University of California (UC) eligibility rates for Black and
Latino high school graduates are much lower than the rates for
Whites and Asians, although UC-eligible Black and Latino high
school graduates have increased slightly between 2003 and 2007.
There is less of a racial and ethnic gap at the California State
University (CSU); eligibility rates for Black and Latino high
school graduates have increased since 2001 but are still below
the figures for Whites and Asians.
Purpose of this Constitutional amendment : According to the
ACA 23
Page 2
author, "ACA 23 provides one solution for addressing meager
minority representation in the UC and on some CSU campuses.
Universities have a vested interest in diversifying their
campuses to produce more well-rounded graduates, and the
consideration of race or national origin in admissions and
outreach programs will help these campuses reach their goal."
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. 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.
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 process. In addition, UC is considering new
admissions criteria that would allow more flexibility in meeting
the admissions requirements in order to be eligible to apply for
admission.
Equal Protection Clause court decisions : The United States
Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (June 2003) ruled that the
Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the University of
Michigan Law School's "narrowly tailored use of race in
admissions decision 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
ACA 23
Page 3
did violate the Equal Protection Clause.
What are student recruitment and selection programs ? Committee
staff was not provided with examples of student recruitment and
selection programs and could not find a definition in current
law. The author may wish to define these terms should this
measure move forward.
Previous legislation : AB 1452 (Nunez) of 2005, which was
approved by the Assembly before it was gutted and amended in the
Senate, would have authorized UC, CSU, and the California
Community Colleges to consider culture, race, gender, ethnicity,
national origin, geographic origin, and household income in
admissions, so long as no preference was given. AB 2387
(Firebaugh) of 2003, which was vetoed, was substantially similar
to AB 1452.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California School Employees Association
Community College League of California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960