BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 185
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
SB 185 (Hernandez) - As Amended: May 3, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 22-14
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education: admissions policies.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the University of California (UC) and the
California State University (CSU) to consider 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 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, when the
university, campus, college, school, or program is attempting
to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a
multi-factored, diverse student body.
2)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.
3)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, including the following:
a) 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.
b) Using existing data-gathering methodologies to the
greatest extent possible.
4)Repeals the authority established by this bill on January 1,
2020.
SB 185
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Declares the Legislature's intent that, in developing
undergraduate and graduate admissions criteria, the UC and CSU
governing boards develop processes that strive to be fair and
easily understandable, and consult broadly with California's
diverse ethnic and cultural communities; and states the intent
of the Legislature that 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. (Education Code � 66205)
2)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, established when California voters approved
Proposition 209 in 1996)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in increased admission cost
pressures on UC and CSU and reporting costs of $150,000 per year
when fully implemented.
COMMENTS : Background . In its most recent eligibility study
(December 2006), the California Postsecondary Education
Commission (CPEC) reports that the UC eligibility rate for
Whites decreased from 16.2% in 2003 to 14.6% in 2007. The rate
for Asians decreased from 31.4% to 29.4%, while the rates for
Latinos and Blacks were nearly unchanged (6.5% in 2003 and 6.9%
in 2007 for Latinos; 6.2% in 2003 and 6.3% 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% in 2003 to 24% in 2007; Latinos from 16% to 22.5%,
and Whites from 34.3% to 37.1%. 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.
Need for 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.
SB 185
Page 3
Current admissions policies .
1)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.
2)UC uses an admissions policy known as Comprehensive Review,
adopted in November 2001. 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, 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 also
admits students who graduate within the top 4% of their high
school class, known as Eligibility in the Local Context.
Finally, UC has adopted 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. UC states that it does not consider
race, ethnicity, or gender in the admissions process.
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." In 2006, voters in Michigan
passed an initiative similar to Proposition 209, banning race
and gender preferences in public education, employment and
contracting.
The Supreme Court also ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) that
the University of
SB 185
Page 4
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.
Finally, on June 21, 2011, the full U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals refused, 9-7, to consider an appeal of a decision by a
panel of its judges in January that upheld the consideration of
race in admissions decisions by the University of Texas,
agreeing that Texas's consideration of race was sufficiently
narrowly tailored to conform with the Grutter decision. The
case is expected to head to the US Supreme Court.
Other factors that may be used . As the Assembly Judiciary
Committee noted in its analysis of an identical bill last year,
this bill would authorize the use of factors that are not
subject to or limited by Proposition 209, specifically,
geographic origin and household income. These factors are not
limited by Proposition 209 and are, therefore, not subject to
the same controversy.
Is 2012 enough time for a meaningful report ? This bill requires
CSU and requests UC to report on implementation of this bill by
November 1, 2012, which will provide the Legislature and
Governor with less than one year of data. Staff recommends a
report date of November 1, 2013, in order to provide more
meaningful information.
Previous legislation . AB 2047 (Hern�ndez, 2010), which was
identical to this bill, was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger,
who wrote in 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 (Hern�ndez, 2009), which died in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee, was substantially similar to this bill, as was AB
SB 185
Page 5
2387 (Firebaugh, 2003), which was also vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California State Student Association
Equal Justice Society
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Association of Social Workers
The Greenlining Institute
Opposition
American Civil Rights Coalition
California Association of Scholars
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960