Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, California Assembly Bill 1780 bars private California colleges from considering legacy and donor preferences in admission decisions. The bill will go into effect beginning with the high school class of 2026.
With Newsom’s signature, California joins Colorado, Maryland, Virginia and Illinois in banning legacy admissions at private universities. Proponents of the bill, including the sponsor, Assemblymember Phil Ting, say it will level the playing field for those without legacy ties to highly selective, private institutions.
The Campanile applauds the bill’s intent to create more equal opportunities for all students. A study by John N. Friedman, an economist at Brown University, found that legacy applicants are 27% more likely to be accepted at schools where they hold legacy status than at similarly selective schools. We think schools should not grant students advantages based on family background but should instead prioritize merit in admissions.
In addition, according to the American Enterprise Institute, connections with donors at private universities such as Harvard can raise an applicant’s chance of admission by a factor of nine. As a result, we think the bill’s elimination of donor preferences makes the college admission process fairer for all.
For higher education to truly value diversity, legacy preferences nationwide should be reevaluated. According to Harvard’s admissions data released during the 2014 Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, legacy admitted students who made up 14.7% of Harvard’s student body were nearly 70% white — far out of line with the 33% of white students that made up the overall student body.
The Campanile thinks by considering legacy preferences in admissions, colleges disproportionately favor wealthy, white students, creating less diverse campus environments and decreasing opportunities for first-generation and minority applicants. AB 1780 is a step in the right direction toward a more equitable system.
We also think California’s initiative can accelerate the movement to level the playing field nationwide. However, while The Campanile supports the state’s intent to create more equal opportunities, we think the bill is ineffective in incentivizing colleges to comply. Private colleges, under the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, exerted immense pressure against the state legislature to keep legacy admissions. In Ting’s original draft of AB 1780, colleges would have been financially penalized for violating the ban; however, private lobbying eliminated that requirement.
Under the new law, there are fewer consequences for violations of the policy. The current penalties include allowing the state attorney general to pursue legal action against colleges that breach it and increasing reported data on legacy admits. Without stronger consequences for colleges that violate the new law, some institutions may try to circumvent the new rules entirely.
The bill’s original enforcement mechanism — preventing colleges from receiving state funding through the Cal Grant financial aid program — would have been far more effective.
Still, although AB 1780 lacks stringent enforcement mechanisms to disincentivize colleges from considering legacy and donor preferences, it is a step in the right direction for achieving an admissions system that is not only fairer but could also chart the way for other states to make the admissions process more equitable.
