BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 185|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 185
Author: Hernandez (D)
Amended: 5/3/11
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
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education
SOURCE : Author
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,
2012, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law declares the Legislature's intent
that, in developing undergraduate and graduate admissions
CONTINUED
SB 185
Page
2
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.
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.
CONTINUED
SB 185
Page
3
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
CSU, there are still large differences between
racial/ethnic groups.
Related Supreme Courte 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
CONTINUED
SB 185
Page
4
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
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.
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
CONTINUED
SB 185
Page
5
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
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), 2003-904 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
CONTINUED
SB 185
Page
6
2013-14 Fund
Admissions Significant cost pressure: UC
and CSU General
consideration
Reporting require- $75 $150
$150 General
ments
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/27/11)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Commission on the Status of Women
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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."
CPM:cm 5/27/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 185
Page
7
CONTINUED