BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2047
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2047 (Hernandez)
As Amended April 28, 2010
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 6-3 JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Block, Chesbro, Fong, |Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, |
| |Galgiani, Portantino, | |Jones, Swanson, Monning, |
| |Ruskin | |Nava |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Adams, Fuller |Nays:|Tran, Hagman, Knight |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATONS 12-5
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, |
| |Bradford, |
| |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| |Skinner, Solorio, |
| |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | |
|-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| |Nielsen, Norby |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the University of California (UC) and the
California State University (CSU) to consider several
demographic characteristics of applicants for undergraduate and
graduate admissions. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes UC and CSU to consider geographic origin and
household income of applicants.
2)Authorizes UC and CSU to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and
national origin to the maximum extent permitted by the equal
AB 2047
Page 2
protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution and pursuant to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court
decision.
3)Requires that CSU, and requests that UC, report to the
Legislature and the Governor by November 2012 on
implementation of the above, including data on admissions
disaggregated by all of the factors identified in 1) and 2)
compared to the two prior years of admissions.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, to the extent UC and/or CSU exercised the authority
provided in the bill, they would likely do so within their
existing resources. Any costs for the reporting requirement are
also absorbable. However, implementation of this bill would
likely lead to litigation, for which UC and/or CSU could incur
legal costs exceeding $150,000.
COMMENTS : In November 1996, California voters passed
Proposition 209, which says: "The State shall not discriminate
against, or grant 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." 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.)
CSU generally admits as first-time freshmen all students who are
California residents and 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. CSU authorizes impacted
undergraduate majors, programs, or campuses to use supplementary
admission criteria to screen applications. Each major, program,
or campus is authorized to determine its own supplementary
admissions criteria.
Under UC's admissions policy, known as Comprehensive Review,
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,
AB 2047
Page 3
and leadership to make admissions decisions. UC states that it
does not consider race, ethnicity, or gender in the admissions
process. In addition, UC has adopted new eligibility criteria,
which goes into effect in Fall 2012, that allow more flexibility
in meeting the admissions requirements.
The Governor vetoed similar legislation on this topic [AB 1452
(Nunez) of 2005], stating in his veto message:
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0004543