California Prohibits Legacy Preferences in College Admissions

A new law bars both public and private universities from privileging children of alumni in college admissions.

In debates over whether universities should (or should be allowed to) consider race in admissions, it is often pointed out that many universities give preferences to the children of alumni and university donors. It is also fairly noted that such preferences may have racially disparate effects (particularly at institutions that were formerly segregated).

As a legal matter, however, race-based preferences more suspect than other admissions preferences. Under current 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause doctrine, the consideration of race by state institutions is inherently suspect (and this standard has been applied to private universities through federal law). Not so many other characteristics that may be used in university admissions processes -- including relationships to alumni and benefactors.

Earlier today, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a measure to prohibit legacy and donor preferences in college admissions throughout the state. Of note, the law will apply to both public and private universities, but does not impose meaningful penalties.

From a Politico report:

California's law, which will take effect Sept. 1, 2025, is the nation's fifth legacy admissions ban, but only the second that will apply to private colleges. . . .

Like other states, California won't financially penalize violators, but it will post the names of violators on the state Department of Justice's website.

California will also add to data reporting requirements that it implemented in 2022, when private colleges had to start sharing the percentage of admitted students who were related to donors and alumni. Schools that run afoul of the new law will also have to report more granular demographic information about their incoming classes to the state, including the race and income of enrolled students as well as their participation in athletics. . . .

Public universities in California won't be affected by the change. California State University does not consider legacy or donor ties, and the University of California system stopped doing so in 1998, two years after California voters banned race-conscious admissions through a statewide ballot measure.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

‘”It is also fairly noted that such preferences may have racially disparate effects (particularly at institutions that were formerly segregated).”

What is that racist group again?
HBCU?

[Katall]

What? Two things. One, I don't think California has any HBCUs. Second, I don't think that HBCUs were formerly (or formally) segregated (but I could be wrong). That is, non-blacks were always able to attend the HBCUs.

[Frank Drackman]

no HBCU’s in California?
How “Progressive” of them, Alabama has 8, Georgia has 10 (any of whose Marching Band can dance rings around that overrated Stanford one)

Frank

[Bubba Jones]

>any of whose Marching Band can dance rings around that overrated Stanford one

What a weird thing to say. I don't think anyone, anywhere, would ever suggest that the Stanford band is objectively good.

[Jon S]

Stanford band was awesome when Cal was scoring on it at the end of "The Play."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

[Frank Drackman]

that Trombone player still hasn't gotten up

[Bubba Jones]

Are you seriously concerned that Grambling won't accept your kids?

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

California is leading the race to the bottom.

[JonFrum]

"It is also fairly noted that such preferences may have racially disparate effects (particularly at institutions that were formerly segregated)."

And how many applicants to college today in 2024 have parents who attended segregated schools? Most parents weren't even alive when colleges were segregated.

[Katall]

While many current parents may not have attended segregated schools, it is not a stretch to say that there are current parents who may have gotten preference because their parents attended the segregated schools.

The generational issue with preferences and other privileges is inherent in many systems. Where do you think the phrase "grandfather clause" originated?

[verochkax]

How far should we go back looking for oppression?

[Krychek_2]

I’m not seeing that it’s oppressive to require applicants to compete on their actual merit versus their last name. Or that wealth should not be a factor in determining college admissions.

[Jon S]

Hard to think of the Venn diagram of people opposed to affirmative action but in favor of legacy admissions who are also not in the racist category as well.

[Roger S]

A lot of colleges would like to ignore race, but still give a preference to the children of major donors.

[verochkax]

Contrary to popular belief, "legacy" alone makes very little difference in admission. At most, it's a tiebreaker. What makes a difference is major alumni involvement and/or large donations. I worked in a top school's admissions office, and no, I'm not going to say which one.

If schools can't let in the one unqualified kid whose dad donated $10 million, that hurts the school more than letting him in.

This law is pure virtue signaling. The number of unqualified alumni children who get in pales in comparison to the number of unqualified underrepresented minorities who get in based on their race. On race, it's not a tiebreaker, but a huge boost. We're talking 200-250 SAT points.

[y81]

Exactly right. What I can’t figure out is if this law is intended to ban donor (or “development office”) preferences, or how California schools will apply it. Considering that the two groups involved are university administrators and state legislators, there is obviously zero probability of an honest answer to that question. I suspect that donor preferences will continue to apply.
For those who wonder, some data points: one of our friends’ children got into Dartmouth but not Yale, her mother’s alma mater. So alumni preference is not of sufficient weight to turn a Dartmouth admit into a Yale admit. The development office told that same mother that $2 MM was the current price (in 2012) for development office preference, an offer she declined. I understand it was a little less (i.e., $1 MM) at the non-HYP Ivies.

[Frank Drackman]

Sucks for Flounder

[Ska]

That's why he ended up leading the Blue Team in Midnight Madness.

OK, I just wanted to reference a bad/good movie from 1980 that I warmly remember from my childhood.

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like a good one, I’m partial to “The Hollywood Knights” Michelle Pfeiffers debut, a nubile Fran Dresher, and probably the funniest fart scene in Cinematic history, done to the tune of “Volare”
Frank

[Bruce Hayden]

It’s idiotic. A lot of kids go to their parents’ alma maters, out of just family history. My daughter was admitted to Carlton College, where my mother and grandfather attended. No scholarship, so she went to a comparable college where she got a nice one. For the most part, the better private schools don’t really provide much in legacy admits these days, absent a history of contributing to the school. For my Alma mater, I was told that it would have taken probably twice the 4 year tuition, over 20 years, to get her a legacy admission. There, and at a lot of the better private schools, Admissions works closely with the fund raising arms of the schools. And without being able to get legacy admissions, a lot of alumni donations are going to dry up. Money that pays for endowed chairs, or scholarships for politically popular minorities.

[David Nieporent]

And without being able to get legacy admissions, a lot of alumni donations are going to dry up.

You think rich people only give money to schools to get their substandard kids into those schools? I mean, yeah, Jared Kushner, okay. But you can still give money to get your name on a building.

[Bored Lawyer]

Right. Money Talks, Legacy Walks.

[Bruce Hayden]

Much of the money isn’t for naming buildings, but rather for class fund raising drives and the like.

[Bored Lawyer]

I wonder how much of the "legacy" preference is geared toward money and how much toward pure legacy. If someone's parent attended the U., but never gave a dime to the school, would he or she get the same preference?

[y81]

No.

[verochkax]

You beat me to it.

[John F. Carr]

The Department of Justice will name and shame violators. It is not clear to me whether there is any power of enforcement by the Attorney General.

As I read the law it does not apply to public schools, only to accredited private nonprofit schools. The prohibition on legacy and donor preferences applies to:

“Independent institution of higher education” means a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance.

[Krayt]

Like other states, California won’t financially penalize violators, but it will post the names of violators on the state Department of Justice’s website.

Sorry, that’s a harm, and should go through a trial. Or is this a “civil penalty” of the type that can cost tens of millions of dollars, but for some reason doesn’t get a trial?

Note this is distinct from a politician flapping their gums at a podium, using their bully pulpit.

And if this plan is such so they can dodge the trial and First Amendment issues, it definitely should not be allowed.

[tuphat]

How on earth can this withstand constitutional challenge with regard to private institutions?

[Bored Lawyer]

What's the Constitutional violation?

[Jon S]

The “liberty” interest of really rich people to buy their underperforming children into college. It’s right there in the 14th Amendment if you squint hard enough. Also dormant commerce clause and contracts clause because why the hell not?

[Krayt]

Legacy are profit centers for Unis. Their families usually can afford full freight, are donators already, and will probably stop if sweetie gets rejected.

Remember it’s Republicans who forced this legacy issue, as they looked to other application enhancement point line items to complain about. This one was extra clever as it fed on democrats' rhetorical hatred of The Rich.

And here we go!

[ReaderY]

Just roll up the constitution and smoke it,. You can always find it in the penumbras and emanations of the resulting vapors if you’re willing to take a hard enough puff.

[MN2828]

Right of association. A private school should be able to admit whomever they wish so long as their criteria don't rely on suspect classifications such as race. So far as I am aware, "not related to an alum" or "unable to donate large sums of money" are not suspect classes.

As a private school, admitting people whose parents donate "building" money makes financial sense, which realistically is what it would take. The schools have to generate enough money to survive particularly if they want to offer reduced fees to more deserving students. Moreover, having generations of the same family attend the school probably helps fund raising. It is all about making and sustaining a connection.

All of this is a solution desperately searching for a problem.

[ReaderY]

Constituional suspect classes apply to state action only. All suspect classes for private action are purely creatures of statute. So far as private institutional admission is concerned, legacy status is now just as much a suspect class in California as race is. Both are suspect classes because the California legislature says they are.

There are anti-suspect classes, that legislatures can’t make suspect. Religion comes to mind. Religious schools have a right to select students based on religion, because of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. But there’s no special constitutional provision protecting a school’s right to choose based on legacy status.

[MN2828]

Query -- How would the State determine a violation? Outside of some Texas public schools, I am not aware of any university offering guaranteed admission for meeting objective criteria. If the decision is subjective anyway, how can you tell if a student was admitted because of a legacy or a donation.

[David Nieporent]

If the decision is subjective anyway, how can you tell if a student was admitted because of a legacy or a donation.

The same way you can for racial preferences: statistical evidence and testimony from people involved in the admissions process.

[y81]

Donor preferences are tiny, about 20 kids per year at Yale or Harvard. (As I mentioned above, that means $2 million.) It will be hard to find those kids in the broader universe of applicants.

[Bwaaah]

It's time to get rid of all laws that have a racially disparate impact. For the sake of brevity, we can start with a list of the ones that don't.

2020 is calling, and Dems refuse to give up their CRT-type analysis.

[tuphat]

FWIW – For those thinking this is a D vs R thing, potentially worth noting that the Virginia ban on public university legacy admission preferences was passed unanimously by a R-controlled House of Delegates and signed into law by a R governor.

[GKHoff]

But Virginia's ban only applies to public universities.