Penalties Removed from California Bill to Ban Donor and Legacy Preferences in Private College Admissions

08.13.2024

In good news for private higher education in California, AB 1780, the pending bill to ban use of legacy and donor preferences in admissions, has been amended to delete the proposed monetary penalty, leaving only a continuation of the current annual reporting requirement. 

The original bill required private (officially called "independent") colleges and universities in California to report annually if they gave admissions preference to applicants related to alumni or donors and, if they did, imposed a penalty which recaptured Cal Grant funding received in the previous year.  Under the amended bill, the reporting requirement would continue, but the penalty is out.  

The current version states clearly and simply that it is the intent of the legislature to stop such preferences and, less clearly, to "protect students as they pursue their higher education."  Education Code Section 66018.4(c) would be amended to state that, as of September 1, 2025, no private college shall provide such preferences as part of its admissions process and must report compliance each year.  Under the existing statute, the reporting requirement was sunsetting this year.  

The original bill passed the Assembly unanimously, and the changes were made in committee in the Senate.  The bill's fate is still uncertain in that, to become law, the Assembly must concur in the amendment, the bill must pass the whole Senate, and it must be signed by the Governor. 

This was the second time such a bill has been introduced.  The previous 2019 bill as passed also included a reporting requirement but no penalty. The bill's author used the data gathered under the earlier bill to support the renewed effort to pass a bill with penalties. 

If the bill is passed, preferences would be banned as of September 1, 2025.  Starting in mid-2025, all California private institutions must report to the legislature whether they utilized legacy or donor preferences in the preceding academic year.  Institutions that did use preferences have an additional requirement to report certain information for all admitted students (legacy/donor status, race, geography, income bracket and athletic status) and the admission rates of students given preference compared to those who did not.  The data will be publicly available only in the aggregate so that no individual can be identified.  

The only impact for institutions utilizing preferences is that the state Department of Justice will post the institution's names on its website. 

Opponents of the bill argued that the proposed penalties would harm the students and impact the viability of smaller institutions.  Importantly, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities ("AICCU") reminded the legislature of the substantial role of independent colleges and universities in serving first generation college students and Hispanic students.  Only 7 out of nearly 90 independent institutions self-reported the use of preferences, and the data shows that, with very limited exceptions, admitted applicants met the admissions standards for all students. 

This is the second attempt by the bill's sponsor, Assemblyperson Ting, to pass this bill.  He can introduce the bill again in the future.  

An analogous federal bill, SB 3232, the "Merit Act," remains pending in committee in the US Senate, with little activity. That bill would add use of legacy admissions to the factors to be considered for accreditation. 

We will continue to monitor the progress of the California bill and report on its fate.  

Please contact author Ken Perkins or your regular AALRR attorney if we can assist you in this area.  

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2024 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo