BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2047
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
AB 2047 (Hernandez) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education: admissions policies.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the University of California (UC) and the
California State University (CSU) to consider culture, 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 culture, 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.
2)Authorizes this consideration to take place if and when the
university, campus, college, school, or program is attempting
to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a
multi-factored, diverse student body.
3)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.
4)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, 2012, and specifies the information the report is
to include.
5)Declares legislative intent that CSU and UC use, to the
greatest extent possible, existing data-gathering
methodologies to prepare the required report.
6)Repeals the authority established by this bill on January 1,
2020.
EXISTING LAW , established when California voters approved
Proposition 209 in 1996, prohibits the state from discriminating
against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual
AB 2047
Page 2
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 bill 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 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 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 bill : 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.
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
AB 2047
Page 3
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 has adopted a 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.
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
did violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Previous legislation : ACA 23 (Hernandez) of 2009, which was
passed by this committee and awaits a hearing in the Assembly
Judiciary Committee, is substantially similar to this bill, as
were AB 1452 (Nunez) of 2005, which was approved by the Assembly
before it was gutted and amended in the Senate, and AB 2387
(Firebaugh) of 2003, which was vetoed. In his veto of AB 2387,
the Governor stated:
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California State Student Association
California Postsecondary Education Commission
AB 2047
Page 4
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960