On September 30, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed State Assembly Bill (A.B.) 1780—which bans consideration of family legacy and donor status in admissions for all California universities—into law [1]. While these practices do not guarantee an applicant’s acceptance, they often boost a subpar or borderline student from the waitlist or rejection to admission. Donor and legacy considerations are particularly pervasive at the nation’s top universities. For example, Harvard University's 2023 admit rates were 3.2, 42, and 34 percent, respectively, for applicants, children of donors, and legacies [2]. These overtly meritless practices continue to spark national outcry.

It follows that A.B. 1780 is not the first ban of its kind. Public universities in Maryland, Virginia, and Colorado may not consider legacy or donor status, nor is it allowed at the University of California or California State University [3]. 102 colleges and universities have abolished the practice, notably John Hopkins University in 2020 and Amherst College in 2021 [4]. What is particularly striking about California’s decision, however, is its implications for private universities like Stanford and the University of Southern California, where legacy admissions are most prevalent [5]. Because most legacy and donor bans center on public universities, A.B. 1780 is a landmark piece of legislation. Shortcomings in the law, however, indicate that it prioritizes perceived fairness over substantive change. 

Specifics and Shortcomings of the Law 

Punishment for schools that continue legacy admissions practices is sorely lacking. In its drafting stage, the California bill stripped violators of their Cal Grant state funding [6]. However, in the passed bill, this penalty was eliminated. Now, California universities are only required to "state publicly" if or when they violate the law [7]. While that may be embarrassing for the schools, moral slaps on the wrist for an already standardized practice do not equate to substantive change. Moreover, the rejection of the financial penalty is striking. California’s government is unhelpful in crafting effective punishments and actively shuts down attempts to establish them, valuing perception and gilded equity over implementation. 

Enforcement of A.B. 1780 remains dubious. The most instruction California has published is that private institutions must hand in an “annual report to disclose compliance” [8]. However, this instruction lacks further specificity. Nowhere in California's brief is there a discussion of what information such a report must contain, how and by whom the report is evaluated, what exactly “compliance” entails, or what metrics will determine whether a student was admitted as a result of legacy status rather than some other credential. Thus, the government is trying to implement the democratic ideal of equity in admissions and failing. 

Even if it were properly enforced, banning legacy and donor admissions falls short of achieving total equity in college admissions. Colleges' continued use of activities sections, essays, and letters of recommendation that favor wealthy students chips away at meritocracy, even without the legacy advantage. For example, privileged students are more likely to be able to pay for summer opportunities and use connections to secure internships that enhance their activity lists. Professors and mentors the students meet at these special programs often write better letters of recommendation than the ones less privileged students receive from their school teachers [9]. Students in high-cost, private high schools are also three times more likely to experience grade inflation than their public school peers [10]. These realities highlight an additional problem with A.B. 1780—a donor’s child is typically wealthy and thus has numerous other redeeming portions of their application to justify an acceptance, making it difficult to determine whether or not the student was admitted because of legacy. Admissions officers will continue to see last names that may be notable at their universities or be verbally advised by donors that their children are applying. For Newsom’s goal of equity to be achieved, the current system requires top-down reform.

Precedent

Two key precedents influence the way A.B. 1780 is conceptualized and implemented. In 2023, Students for Fair Admissions, an advocacy group focused on overturning affirmative action, won a lawsuit against Harvard University, prompting the nationwide elimination of affirmative action and the consideration of race in college admissions [11]. While the decision seemed to hold promise, Harvard’s subsequent statement quickly cast some doubt on its effectiveness. Noting that the Supreme Court did not ban students from discussing how race impacted their lives in their application essays, Harvard promised that it would “certainly comply with the Court’s decision” [12]. Now, 43 of the nation’s top 65 universities and colleges have an “essay carveout,” a loophole to the affirmative action ban [13]. While there is no box to check denoting one’s race or ethnicity, colleges have found equivalents in unprovable metrics like essays. A.B. 1780 promises to parallel Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard because it lacks proper enforcement toward its ends. It is a seemingly impressive government measure that falls short of creating a substantial impact.

Likewise, many years ago, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) dealt with considerations of identity in admissions, banning the use of racial quotas [14]. If the government does enforce A.B. 1780 without proper regimentation, colleges may turn to cutoffs to ensure that they do not admit a suspiciously high number of legacy and donor students. This action would contradict the precedent in Bakke by effectively establishing a quota system. It could also deprive qualified legacy students of admission solely based on their parents' status, which is antithetical (albeit in the opposite sense) to the original law. This demonstrates how problematic the implementation of A.B. 1780 will be under the current lack of guidelines. 

Alternatives and Future Implications

Given the problems with existing legislation, finding an equitable path forward for college admissions is critical. Removing names from admissions and using social security numbers or other harder-to-identify markers instead could mitigate the impact of the legacy and donor advantage, making it harder for admissions officers to identify connected individuals by their family name. Further, the government could implement a statistical analysis task force to determine whether donor students are admitted based on merit, compared to the rest of the incoming class, by computing such variables as class rank, supplemental essay quality, and test scores. Implementing these measures at other educational institutions, such as graduate schools, will extend the scope of diversity and equity principles even further. 

Viewed in conjunction with recent modifications to the college admissions system, A.B. 1780 appears to be more of a performative move than a substantive change. Its failures speak to greater injustice in the current college admissions system, where governments make relatively impactless laws that dilute the voices demanding true systemic change. If lawmakers were to recognize the injustices they foster and take measures to minimize them, A.B. 1780 could be a guide toward a brighter future. Further research, government resources, and task forces are imperative to equity in the college admissions process.