BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 185
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 185 (Ed Hernandez)
As Amended July 7, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-14
HIGHER EDUCATION 5-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Block, Brownley, Fong, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Lara, Portantino | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly, Achadjian, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Miller | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2013, including the following:
SB 185
Page 2
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; and,
b) Using existing data-gathering methodologies to the
greatest extent possible.
4)Repeals the authority established by this bill on January 1,
2020.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, significant one-time General Fund 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 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.
COMMENTS : In its most recent eligibility study (December 2006),
the California Postsecondary Education Commission reported 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.
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,
passed by voters in 1996, which 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.
Although controversial to some supporters of Proposition 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.)
SB 185
Page 3
Related court decisions. On June 21, 2011, the full U.S. Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals refused 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 the university's consideration of race
was sufficiently narrowly tailored to conform with the Grutter
decision. The case is expected to head to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
In 2006, voters in Michigan passed an initiative similar to
Proposition 209, banning race and gender preferences in public
education, employment and contracting. This initiative was
overturned on July 1, 2011, by a three-judge panel of the U.S.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Current admissions policies. 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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN:
SB 185
Page 4
0002174