A bill to prohibit legacy and donor admissions preferences at private universities passed the California State Assembly Tuesday — an important victory for opponents of the practice.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1780 has gained legislative momentum and support from student activists since Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced the bill in February. The push to end legacy and donor preferences follows a Supreme Court ruling last year that ended race-conscious admissions in higher education.

“We want Stanford, as well as every private university in California, to have an equitable and fair admissions process,” Ting previously told The Daily.

The bill passed with a vote of 55 in favor and none opposed. 25 assembly members did not vote. AB 1780 will now move to consideration in the State Senate.

If passed by the Senate and Gov. Gavin Newsom, it would ban legacy and donor preferences at the seven higher education institutions that continue the practice in California, including Stanford and the University of Southern California (USC).

Universities that resist the mandate would face a fine equal to funding received from the Cal Grant financial aid program. An original version of AB 1780 would have directly reduced universities’ Cal Grant funding, but an amendment replaced this mechanism with the fine, to avoid impacting financial aid.

The Daily has reached out to the University for comment on AB 1780 passing the Assembly. University spokesperson Dee Mostofi previously wrote to The Daily that Stanford has not taken a position on the bill. She described legacy status as one factor within a holistic review process and stressed that diversity was “critical” to Stanford’s mission.

Publicly available data show that 13.8% of Stanford’s autumn 2022 admitted class had legacy or donor ties, though it is unclear how many students’ outcomes hinged on legacy status.

“If you work hard, get good grades and have a well-rounded background, your spot should not be taken by someone else just because their family can write a big check or is a graduate of that school,” Ting wrote in a statement.

The legislative shift coincides with a rise in campus activism against legacy preferences. Numerous Stanford students have joined Class Action, a national organization that opposes the practice. Student members have rallied behind AB 1780 while calling for the University to amend admissions policies on its own.

“The California Assembly made its position clear,” said Ryan Cieslikowski ’23, lead organizer of Class Action. “Admission to California colleges shouldn’t be treated as a family heirloom that’s passed down from parent to child.”

Class Action member Sophie Callcott ’24 said she was “beyond thrilled” to see AB 1780 pass the Assembly. She added that it was “gratifying to know so many representatives of such a big state agree that this is an essentially Californian and important cause to fight for.”

In April, Callcott and other students traveled to the State Capitol in Sacramento to support the bill.

With AB 1780 headed to the State Senate, Cieslikowski said Class Action was strategizing on how to continue supporting the bill. Callcott said she hoped to continue her advocacy over the summer.

Outside of Class Action, students recently formed a branch of “Students for Educational Equity” inspired by a club at Brown University focused on educational disparities. Members of the organization have tabled for their cause in White Plaza and launched a community-wide petition to demand that Stanford abolish legacy preferences.

The Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) have also shown support for AB 1780, with the undergraduate senate and graduate student council passing a joint resolution this month that endorsed the bill. The resolution also called for Stanford to abolish legacy and donor preferences “before the state legislature may impose the restriction.”

“It would be hard, were I an administrator, not to see the writing on the wall,” Callcott said.

If AB 1780 passes the State Senate, Governor Gavin Newsom will have the power to pass or veto the bill. Callcott said it would be “hard to rationalize” Newsom vetoing the bill given his opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-conscious admissions. 

“If you’re making your platform or any facet of it equitable admissions, you’re going to have to do that holistically,” she said.