California Legislature Moves to Ban Legacy Admissions in Private Colleges
California's Legislature has passed a bill aimed at eliminating legacy admissions at the state’s private nonprofit colleges, a move that could reshape college admissions in one of the most influential states in the U.S. If signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, this legislation would prohibit colleges from considering whether an applicant’s family members have donated to or attended the school in admissions decisions. Supporters argue this bill is a necessary counterbalance to last year’s Supreme Court ruling that banned race-based admissions, with potential implications for college access across the country.
The Push for Fairer Admissions: Ending Legacy Preferences
The bill, known as Assembly Bill 1780, was authored by Assemblymember Philip Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in college admissions. Ting's legislation targets legacy admissions, which have been criticized for favoring well-connected and wealthy applicants over others who may be more qualified based on academic merit.
“We want to make sure that everyone’s getting in because of their own merit, because of their grades, their test scores, what they provide to that institution, not because of their pocketbooks, of their parents or their family members,” Ting said during a legislative session in May.
California would become the fifth state to ban legacy preferences in college admissions, following a national trend of scrutinizing the fairness of admissions practices. Although the bill would affect only a small number of private institutions—approximately six colleges currently consider legacy status—it sends a strong message about the importance of equitable access to higher education.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based admissions policies marked a significant shift in how colleges can promote diversity on their campuses. For nearly 50 years, affirmative action had been a tool for increasing representation of marginalized groups in higher education. However, the ruling now leaves colleges with fewer options to consider applicants’ diverse backgrounds.
In California, the ruling had limited immediate impact on public universities, as voters had already banned affirmative action in public school admissions in 1996. The recent bill targets private institutions, which have more flexibility in their admissions criteria. By eliminating legacy preferences, lawmakers hope to level the playing field for all applicants, regardless of their family’s wealth or connections.
Potential Influence on College Applications and Access
Advocates of the bill, such as Jessie Ryan, president of The Campaign for College Opportunity, argue that eliminating legacy preferences can have a broader cultural impact, especially for low-income and minority students who may otherwise feel discouraged from applying to prestigious institutions. Ryan believes that the bill is part of a larger effort to show that wealth does not offer an unfair advantage in college admissions.
“You’re doing something bigger related to culture and [social] fabric as students are questioning the value of college altogether and whether or not they want to pursue a higher education,” Ryan said. She emphasized that while the bill will directly impact only a small number of enrollment slots, its symbolic value is significant at a time when many high school graduates, particularly men, are opting out of college.
Scope and Limitations of the Legislation
Currently, only a handful of California's private universities consider legacy status in admissions decisions. In fall 2022, about seven of the state’s approximately 90 private institutions admitted legacy students, with over 3,300 out of 31,633 undergraduates admitted through these preferences. The bill’s direct impact is thus limited, affecting schools such as Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, University of Southern California, and Northeastern University Oakland.
Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, expressed concern about legislative oversight of private college admissions. “This is not a lot of students, not in the whole landscape of all the students we serve,” Soares said, adding that the association opposed the bill. Soares noted that private colleges receive limited state support, primarily in the form of tuition aid for low-income students, and emphasized the autonomy of private institutions in setting their own admissions policies.
Financial and Administrative Implications
While Governor Newsom has not yet signed the bill, his Department of Finance has expressed neutrality but raised concerns about potential costs. The bill would require the state’s Department of Justice to monitor compliance, potentially necessitating the hiring of two new employees at a time when California faces large budget deficits.
The bill’s initial draft included provisions for financial penalties against colleges that continued to use legacy admissions, but these were ultimately removed. As the bill currently stands, the only consequence for non-compliance would be public listing by the Department of Justice. Despite this, supporters like Ryan are prepared to take legal action if colleges do not adhere to the new rules.
Broader Context and Future Considerations
The debate over legacy admissions is part of a larger conversation about equity in higher education. Critics argue that ending legacy preferences is a modest step compared to other potential reforms, such as increasing financial aid or eliminating standardized testing requirements, which could have a more direct impact on college access.
Steve Desir, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California who studies racial equity in college access, cautioned that it is too early to determine the long-term effects of this bill or the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action. “It’s just so new, and I think everyone’s still trying to make sense of what this actually means in practice,” Desir said.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the bill in changing college admissions practices will depend on ongoing efforts by colleges to engage with and support students from diverse backgrounds. As higher education institutions continue to navigate the implications of these legal and legislative changes, the commitment to making college accessible to all remains a critical priority.
If signed by Governor Newsom, Assembly Bill 1780 will mark a significant step in California’s efforts to promote fairness in college admissions by banning legacy preferences. While the immediate impact may be limited to a small number of private colleges, the broader implications for college access and equity are profound. As California continues to set the stage for national education policies, the ban on legacy admissions could inspire similar actions in other states, pushing forward the conversation about who gets to attend college and why.