University admissions may prioritize descendants of slaves under new California bill
Earlier this month, California Assemblyman Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles introduced a bill, Assembly Bill 7, which would affect admissions for the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems. The legislation would require the state’s public colleges to “consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” according to the Legislative Counsel’s description of the bill.
Bryan told the Associated Press, “For decades universities gave preferential admission treatment to donors, and their family members, while others tied to legacies of harm were ignored and at times outright excluded… We have a moral responsibility to do all we can to right those wrongs.”
Admissions to California universities have been the subject of intense debate for years. Many state lawmakers champion affirmative action and reparations – despite Proposition 209’s legal prohibition on race-preferential treatment that has been in place since 1996. Lawmakers attempted to override voters and repeal Proposition 209 in both 2020 and 2023, but both efforts failed. Bryan’s bill is just another example of prioritizing ideological agendas over what’s best for students.
Despite Proposition 209 protections, the University of California has continued to implement admissions practices that critics argue circumvent the ban on race-based preferences.
General UC admissions standards promise to consider “life experiences and special circumstances” when evaluating academic achievement. For example, “disadvantaged social or educational environment” can play a role in admissions decisions as well asgeographic background. These criteria undermine the primacy of merit-based evaluation, replacing it with vague and subjective factors that bear little relevance to a student’s potential for collegiate success.
Further, although the UC system claims concern for disadvantaged students, recent admissions changes have eliminated a key metric for impartially evaluating their preparation: Standardized test scores (specifically SAT and ACT) have played no part in admissions decisions or scholarship awards since 2020. But many scholars question the notion that eliminating standardized testing benefits students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Dr. Wenyuan Wu, a specialist in education policy, points out that the poor quality of American K-12 education will not be rectified by disregarding the tests that set a minimum expectation for educational outcomes.
In other words, students across California will be under-prepared for university whether they take the SAT or not. Instead, students who possess academic merit, regardless of their background, have one less avenue for demonstrating their capabilities. Indeed, data-driven research by Donald Wittman found that the SAT does a much better job at predicting UC grades than does high school GPA alone, especially for students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Given that grading can be incredibly subjective and variable across California school districts and even individual classrooms, the need for standardized testing that can demonstrate a student’s true academic preparedness is more important than ever. Ironically, the University of California’s rejection of standardized testing only decreases the educational preparation demanded of K-12 schools. Students have lost an unbiased means of demonstrating their achievement, while their high schools are even less incentivized to prepare them to perform well on future standardized tests.
Elevating a student’s lineage or socioeconomic background in their college admissions will only harm students, even those who benefit from preferential treatment. Attending university can be an expensive commitment, and receiving an admissions offer should, in theory, mean that a student has been recognized for potential success in their courses. By adding weight to factors beyond academic ability and preparedness, some students could be thrust into educational challenges that are too difficult to overcome. High dropout rates leave many students burdened with debt and uncertainty about their futures, compounding the challenges they sought to escape through higher education.
The bottom line is that Asm. Bryan’s bill aims to address inequalities in society, but ignores how California’s education system is responsible for failing to adequately prepare too many minority and low-income students.
California’s latest academic performance data reveals that overall less than half (47 percent) of all California students met English Language Arts (ELA) standards, and only 35.5 percent met math standards. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students fare even worse, with 36.8 percent meeting ELA standards and only one-quarter meeting math standards; Black students are perhaps most severely impacted by the state’s failing education system, with 30 percent of students meeting ELA standards and just under 18 percent meeting grade-level math standards.
Critics can’t blame these abysmal student performance indicators on lack of education funding. Since California’s COVID-19 pandemic school shutdowns, substantial budget increases to K-12 education have largely failed to rebound math and reading performance to pre-pandemic levels. Furthermore, declines in enrollment at public schools mean that funding per-student has essentially grown over the past few years. Instead, state leaders must target the root causes that are leaving students unprepared for university.
Ultimately, California must focus on delivering high-quality K-12 education that equips all students for success, rather than manipulating college admissions to engineer demographic outcomes. The real failure lies not in broader societal issues but in a state education system that entrenches disparities and leaves California’s most vulnerable students unprepared for the challenges of higher education.
Leah Raymond is a junior at Georgetown University studying Government and Education.
Wyatt Greco is a current Master of Public Policy Student at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy.
Sheridan Swanson is the research manager at California Policy Center.