A.S. senators approved a resolution in support of a bill written by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Sacramento) that would authorize the University of California and California State University systems to consider factors such as ethnicity and gender in admissions.
The unnamed bill, known as AB 1452, is moving through the California Legislature. On April 5, the Higher Education Subcommittee passed the bill by a vote of 5-1. The bill is now being reviewed by the appropriations committee, according to Nuñez’s spokesman, Alex Traverso.
The legislation would allow the UC and CSU systems to consider culture, race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin and household income in admissions processes, so long as no preference is given. Preference based on race is prohibited under Proposition 209, passed in 1996.
If approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor, the bill would work in conjunction with Proposition 209 rather than override it, according to Traverso.
“The bill has no impact on 209,” he said. “It’s more of a tool to give to the CSU and UC systems that they can use to be aware if they’re not reaching a certain group of students or if they need to outreach to a certain community.”
Revell College Senior Senator Ted McCombs drafted a resolution in support of Nuñez’s proposal; the resolution was passed 14-6-4 by a roll-call vote April 15. McCombs said he praised the bill’s broad consideration of factors while increasing diversity, and said Associated Students plans to lobby in favor of the bill in May.
“Culture, gender and household income are all parts of a very complex identity for each person,” he stated in an e-mail. “By looking at the whole picture, we’re getting a better sense of how well these students really are performing, given their context, and at the same time we’re breaking down the ultimately discriminatory selection mechanisms that keep underrepresented groups out of the UCs.”
A portion of AB 1452 would require the UC system to report student-body statistics to the California legislature every two years, Traverso said. If significant differences between student groups are reported, the law would either give lawmakers the chance to address problems themselves or allow UC and CSU administrators to remedy the situation, he said.
“It helps keep the UC and CSU systems accountable,” Traverso said.
Opponents, however, are skeptical of the bill’s legality.
“This isn’t a question of diversity,” said Craig DeLuz, spokesman for Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Sacramento), the only Higher Education Subcommittee member to vote against the proposal. “What this bill wants to achieve is completely illegal because of Proposition 209. There is no way you can have consideration of factors such as ethnicity without having preference.”
In a legal opinion on the proposed legislation, Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Sharon Browne said the “no preference” proviso was a “meaningless disclaimer to protect the bill from a legal challenge under Proposition 209.”
“It does nothing to counter the express encouragement to use and consider race and gender in admissions decisions,” Browne stated in an email. “It is our legal opinion that it violates Proposition 209.”
Browne has worked for PLF, a conservative-leaning group, as an enforcer of Proposition 209.
However, Traverso said that AB 1452 does not allow student affirmative action.
“We have been extremely careful to alleviate everyone’s concerns about the bill superceding Proposition 209,” he said. “AB 1452 is a way to ensure that each of these groups of students is given an equal opportunity by having CSU and UC look at their own numbers. Nowhere in the bill does it mention things like racial or gender quotas.”
UC administrators have taken no position on the bill, according to UC Office of the President spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina.
“Our lawyers have advised that [it] would not provide additional flexibility in the admissions process due to the constraints we face under Proposition 209,” she stated in an e-mail. “The bill will not affect UC admissions policies or procedures.”
A similar bill was proposed last year by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh (D-South Gate) but was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. While Traverso admitted the current proposal is almost identical to Firebaugh’s failed bill, he said Nuñez is hopeful of his proposal’s chances.
“Since last year, there has been legislative council opinion that a bill such as this wouldn’t put any weight on preferential treatment,” Traverso said. “Some of the governor’s concerns with the last bill have been addressed since then.”
