California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three new laws on Friday that address issues within the college admissions process in light of the Operation Varsity Blues scandal that broke this past year.
The college admissions scandal has led to over 50 arrests and accusations and persisted in the media this year, with USC as the face of the national story. These new legal parameters require clarity on any preference given to college applicants, establish a monitoring system for accepted students who do not meet the average criteria for admission and prevent convicted participants of the scandal from receiving tax benefits for their “donations” that got their children admitted, according to an article by the Associated Press.
In addition, the new laws will further address “admission by exception,” which is the University of California system’s policy of admitting up to 6% of applicants that don’t meet the minimum academic requirements in the cases of special circumstances. These policies will increase the standards for acceptance, requiring a minimum of three administrators to approve each “exception” application.
“This package of bills strikes at the forces that keep the doors of opportunity closed to too many people in our state,” Newsom said in an Oct. 4 press release. “Together, we’re improving affordability, transparency and integrity in higher education.”
Rachel Moran, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that even though the government cannot investigate every applicant, legislation like this can help address vulnerability as a whole.
“I think what they are trying to do with this is to focus on areas which were points of vulnerability in the [admissions] process that were revealed through the scandal... and to try to at least provide more checks and balances so that those aren't as easy a way to circumvent the general admission,” Moran said.
With the new measures being a product of the scandal, they will ultimately tighten up on loopholes that allow donors and legacy admissions to be admitted. Assembly Bill 679 states that it will vet “any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution.”
Although proactive measures seemed par of the course, some like Michael S. Overing, a professor of law at USC, feel these policies are riddled with potential pitfalls.
“This language [in these policies] is probably overbroad and violates [the] rights of privacy and freedom of association,” Overing said. “It’s unclear whether they will take adverse action upon receipt of the information.”
The USC Admission Center said they are reviewing the new laws in detail.
Moran believes that these policies will set a standard for out-of-state universities in regards to admissions reform.
“California is often on the leading edge of reform,” Moran said. “One thing that distinguished California was that there was some activity [in] public universit[ies]... So I think the impulse to regulate here might have been stronger because there were concerns about the integrity of public colleges and universities for which state political actors are directly responsible.”
Kris Kelley contributed to this report.