California Enacts Sweeping Legacy Ban

California governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation banning admissions preferences for relatives of alumni and donors at both public and private universities in the state on Monday, the second law in the nation that applies to independent as well as public colleges.

The law is the most significant win yet for opponents of legacy admissions, who have long criticized the practice at highly selective private universities like Stanford University and the University of Southern California. It will go into effect in September 2025 and won’t impact this coming admissions cycle.

Maryland became the first state to pass a public and private legacy ban earlier this year, but very few colleges were affected; its most selective university, Johns Hopkins, discontinued the practice in 2020. By contrast, California’s elite private colleges admit substantial numbers of legacy applicants. In 2022, 14.4 percent of USC’s first-year class were legacy admits, according to the latest available data; 13.8 percent of Stanford’s class and 13.3 percent of Santa Clara University’s also had family ties.

The California bill was one of many legislative attacks on alumni preferences to emerge after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action last June, which unleashed a wave of public criticism of the practice. Virginia and Illinois passed laws applying only to public universities earlier this year; Colorado did the same in 2021.

Jessie Ryan, president of the California-based Campaign for College Opportunity—which has long advocated for a statewide legacy ban—said the law is a major victory for equitable college access. Institutions that give preference to legacy applicants have been shown to admit fewer students of color and low-income students.

“It is unconscionable to keep giving legacy and donor preferences when others are questioning their place in higher ed more than ever,” Ryan said.

The law’s passage also marks the end of a five-year effort by state legislators and equity advocates, launched after the 2019 Varsity Blues scandal, in which USC was a key player. During the following state legislative session, lawmakers transformed a legacy-ban bill into a transparency measure requiring all colleges to release data on legacy and donor admits.

California assembly member Phil Ting, who introduced both the 2019 legacy bill and this year’s, said the legislation was “long overdue.”

“When the Varsity Blues scandal happened, we saw how blatantly people would try to bribe their way into elite universities—and, frankly, succeeded,” he said. “It was unfortunate we didn’t shut that door then.”

Some of the state’s selective private colleges, like the California Institute of Technology, don’t factor legacy status into admissions decisions. The University of California system abandoned the practice in 1998.

The law includes a narrow loophole that limits its scope to universities that take state funding for admissions purposes, a provision that would allow private colleges to continue legacy preferences if they opt out of the CalGrant scholarship program.

Some institutions will likely be reluctant to part with that money; USC students received more than $26 million in CalGrant funding during the 2021–22 academic year, according to the latest institutional data. But other colleges could more feasibly replace their state grants with institutional scholarships. Stanford students received $3 million in state scholarships in the 2022–23 academic year, according to institutional data; the university’s institutional aid budget that year was over $260 million.

As Goes California?

Some state lawmakers who tried to pass similar bills this year, bolstered by public backlash to the affirmative action ban, saw their efforts wither in committees or get killed on assembly floors.

Earlier this year, a Connecticut State Senate committee advanced a legacy ban bill for public and private colleges. It appeared to be poised for a bipartisan ride to passage, but after a concerted lobbying effort from private institutions, including Yale, Fairfield University and Trinity College, the law was first watered down into a transparency measure and then, finally, abandoned. Similar bills in New York and Massachusetts seemed to be gaining steam this year, but neither was ultimately brought to a vote.

Ryan believes California succeeded where other states have not in part because the Varsity Blues fight built a determined coalition of legacy opponents and helped prime the system for more aggressive action.

“Varsity Blues wasn’t enough, but it was a step in this direction; then the Supreme Court [affirmative action] decision pushed things over the edge,” she said. “It’s about the culmination of years of public backlash.”

Ryan said one reason legislative efforts in other states stalled this year was because people believed that colleges might end legacy preferences of their own accord. It was one of the measures the Biden administration recommended after the Supreme Court ruling, and many institutions signaled they were open to the idea. But over the past year, only a handful of selective universities have voluntarily discontinued their legacy admissions policies.

“There’s been this sense that public outcry alone is going to compel universities to change, but it hasn’t happened,” Ryan said. “It has to be legislated.”

Ting said he thinks the law could start a domino effect of university boards and leaders finally re-examining their legacy policies.

“People are used to following California,” he said. “If universities like Stanford and USC in particular start to not practice legacy admissions, I think that sends a huge signal to every other elite university around the country.”

Changing Tides

For decades, private colleges and their lobbying organizations have said that imposing any restrictions on legacy preferences would erode the autonomy of independent institutions—an argument that has prevailed over generations of lawmakers going back to Senator Ted Kennedy’s crusade for admissions transparency in the early 2000s.

Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, said her organization opposes the new law but will comply next year.

“We have been clear that we are uncomfortable with the state dictating admission practices in our institutions, and the precedent it sets,” she wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “We have also been clear throughout the discussions on this bill that we welcome the opportunity to help ensure people have confidence in an admission process that is equitable for all.”

But Ryan said that behind the scenes, the state’s private universities were uncharacteristically divided, and many were in favor of the law. Occidental College, a private institution in Los Angeles, ended its legacy policy voluntarily earlier this year, and last week its president wrote an op-ed for Inside Higher Ed urging Newsom to sign the law.

“I wouldn’t have believed this before this [legislative] session, but lobbyists for private colleges have actually been quietly supportive of the bill,” Ryan said. “It still had its big detractors in Stanford and USC, but the opposition was much weaker than even a few years ago…[Colleges] don’t want to be seen as being on the wrong side of history.”