BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2047
AUTHOR: Hernandez
AMENDED: April 28, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education admissions
policies.
KEY POLICY ISSUE
Should the CSU and UC be authorized to consider specified
factors in its undergraduate and graduate admissions?
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the California State University (CSU)
and the University of California (UC) to consider
geographic origin, household income, race, gender,
ethnicity and national origin along with other relevant
factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, and
requires and requests the CSU and UC, respectively, to
report on the implementation of these provisions to the
Legislature and Governor by November 1, 2012, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Current law declares the Legislature's intent that, in
developing undergraduate and graduate admissions criteria,
the governing boards of the UC and the CSU develop
processes that strive to be fair and easily understandable,
and consult broadly with California's diverse ethnic and
cultural communities. Current law authorizes the intent of
the Legislature that the UC and the CSU seek to enroll a
student body that meets high academic standards and
reflects the cultural, racial, geographic, economic, and
social diversity of California.
AB 2047
Page 2
(Education Code 66205)
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.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Authorizes the UC and the CSU to consider a variety of
relevant factors to the maximum extent permitted by
the decision of the US Supreme Court in Grutter v.
Bollinger and in conformity with specified provisions
of the United States Constitution, in undergraduate
and graduate admissions decisions including:
a) Geographic origin.
b) Household income.
c) Race.
d) Gender.
e) Ethnicity.
f) National Origin.
2) Requires the CSU Trustees and requests the UC Regents
to report in writing to the Legislature and the
Governor by November 1, 2012 on the implementation of
these provisions and additionally:
a) Requires the report to include
information relative to the number of students
AB 2047
Page 3
admitted disaggregated by race, gender,
ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin and
household income compared to the prior two years
of admission.
b) Declares the Legislature's intent
that the CSU and the UC use existing
data-gathering methodologies to the greatest
extent possible in preparing the report.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . In its most recent eligibility
study (December 2008), 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 rate for Blacks, 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 CSU, there are still large
differences between racial/ethnic groups.
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 that they now represent. According to the
author, 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.
AB 2047
Page 4
2) Related Supreme Court decisions . This bill declares
legislative intent that its provisions be implemented
to the maximum extent permitted by the decisions of
the US Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger. In June
2003, the US Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v.
Bollinger (2003) 539 U.WW. 306, 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.
3) Current admissions policies . The CSU system 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. The 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.
The University of California uses an admissions policy
known as Comprehensive Review, adopted in November
2001. Campuses use 14 selection criteria, ten based
AB 2047
Page 5
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. The UC
recently adopted a new eligibility criteria which goes
into effect in Fall 2012 that may allow more
flexibility in meeting admissions requirements in
order to be eligible to apply for admission.
4) Prior legislation .
a) ACA 23 (Hernandez, 2009) exempts public
education institutions from the constitutional
prohibitions established by Proposition 209 for
the purposes of implementing student recruitment
and selection programs at public postsecondary
education institutions. The proposed
constitutional amendment passed the Assembly
Higher Education Committee by a vote of 6-1 in
July 2009 and is currently awaiting action in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
b) AB 2387 (Firebaugh, 2004) 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. AB 2387 was 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
AB 2047
Page 6
unconstitutional, they would be more
appropriately addressed through a change to the
State Constitution.
5) Policy arguments .
Proponents contend that it is in the State's interest
to develop and
maintain the most diverse and representative body of
qualified students as the
associated educational and societal gains help California
be more
competitive in a global economy.
Opponents contend that any statutory effort to require
consideration of race
in university admissions violates the California
Constitution and
would be subject to legal challenge.
SUPPORT
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Postsecondary Education Commission
California State Student Association
Equal Justice Society
The Greenlining Institute
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
OPPOSITION
American Civil Rights Coalition
California Association of Scholars