Lawmakers this week approved a bill that would make California one of the few states in the country to ban private universities from considering an applicant’s legacy or donor connections during the admissions process, a move aimed at strengthening fair access to higher education for all students regardless of wealth or family influence.
However, the bill sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom was stripped of the original provisions calling for strict financial penalties for private institutions that violate the law. Instead, the measure would require all private universities, including the University of Southern California and Stanford, to submit an annual report to the state disclosing the number of admitted applicants who were given admissions preference because they were children of alumni or donors.
“If a university violates the law, the attorney general could take action,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), author of AB1780. “I hope the attorney general makes violations a priority.”
California State University and the University of California do not give admissions preference to children of alumni or donors. Some private universities, including Pomona and Occidental, have also abandoned this practice in recent years.
Such preferential treatment drew renewed opposition after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that race-based affirmative action in college applications is unconstitutional.
Legacy and donor advantages in admissions have since been ridiculed by Ting and other opponents who have gained traction in state legislatures, saying the practices tend to favor white, wealthy students.
In April, Maryland banned legacy admissions in all higher education, a month after Virginia did the same for public colleges and universities. Three years ago, Colorado became the first state to outlaw legacy admissions.
The law would affect a small number of California's most selective schools that still take such connections into account when evaluating applications.
Under a 2019 state law drafted by Ting, universities were required to file an annual report to the state on admissions from bequests or donors. The law, which expired in 2023, was prompted by the Varsity Blues scandal, which revealed pay-for-play admissions for children of celebrities and other wealthy Americans at elite U.S. schools.
In 2023, USC said it offered admission to 1,791 undergraduate applicants who were family members of donors or alumni, or about 14.5% of admitted students. At Stanford, the figure was 295, representing about 13.6% of admitted students. The proportion was lower at other universities.
At Santa Clara University, there were 38. Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd universities reported offering admission to 15 students who had connections to legacies or donors.
Each of the five institutions emphasized that the admitted students met their regular admissions standards.
Dozens of other private universities that submitted information to the California Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, which sends its data to Sacramento, reported that ties to alumni or donors were not considered in any of their evaluations of applicants.
In an interview, Ting said her goal was to “make sure we have equity and fairness in state admissions.”
Ting originally wanted the bill to force colleges that violate the law to pay fines equal to the amount they received in Cal Grants. The Cal Grant program is the state’s main tuition subsidy for low-income students and can amount to millions of dollars at some schools.
He admitted that without financial penalties tied to Cal Grant money, the proposed law would be weaker than he initially imagined.
Ting said university representatives told him they would “abide by the law” if Newsom signed the measure before the Sept. 30 deadline.
In response to questions from The Times, universities that previously reported using endowment and donor status in admissions, as well as the association that represents them, said they would abide by the ban if Newsom signs it into law.
In an email, a USC representative said it had no position on the bill and would “comply with state law” if signed.
The schools also noted that they have made progress in admitting more low-income applicants.
“Throughout discussions on this bill, we have been clear that we welcome the opportunity to help ensure that people have confidence in an admissions process that is equitable for all,” said Kristen Soares, president of the California Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. “Our colleges and universities are compliance-driven institutions, and if the bill becomes law, they will faithfully work to meet the Sept. 1, 2025 implementation date.”
Representatives from Santa Clara University and Harvey Mudd College offered similar responses.
Stanford and Claremont McKenna College did not respond to requests from The Times.
