BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 185
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 185 (Hernandez) - As Amended: July 7, 2011
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill 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 race, gender, 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
an educational benefit is being sought through 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) and in
conformity with the California Constitution.
3)Requires the CSU Board of Trustees and requests the UC Board
of Regents to report to the Legislature and governor on the
implementation of this bill's provisions by November 1, 2013,
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.
FISCAL EFFECT
Significant one-time GF costs-about $350,000 at UC and $200,000
at CSU-to the extent either segment develops and implements a
revised admissions policy that considers the specified
SB 185
Page 2
demographic factors, and reports on the implementation as
specified. In addition, implementing this bill would likely lead
to litigation, for which UC and/or CSU could incur legal costs
exceeding $150,000.
�Both UC and CSU have incurred GF budget reductions of $650
million for 2011-12. While a portion of this reduction in state
support has been offset by significant student fee increases,
both segments are also reducing enrollments and course
offerings. Moreover, if state revenues fall $1 billion or more
below the Budget Act forecast, UC and CSU will each incur an
additional $100 million GF reduction.]
COMMENTS
1)Proposition 209 and Federal Court Decisions . 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."
Although controversial to some supporters of Prop. 209, 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.)
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.
2)Background on Admissions . 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
SB 185
Page 3
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,
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 go into effect in Fall 2012, that allow more
flexibility in meeting the admissions requirements.
3)Purpose . 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.
4)Opposition . Both the American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC)
and the California Association of Scholars oppose the bill,
arguing that it is a violation of Prop. 209. The ACRC in part
argues that, if signed, the bill would be challenged in court
and "cause the state a needless and expensive legal battle?"
5)Prior Legislation . In 2010, AB 2047 (Hern�ndez), a nearly
identical bill, was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who
argued that the bill's intent would be more appropriately
addressed through a constitutional change.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081