College Admission Priority for Slave Descendants

A California Assemblymember introduced a bill to prioritize admissions for descendants of American chattel slavery at the state’s University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems. 

 

Assembly Bill 7 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) aims to redress historical and ongoing discrimination in higher education against Black individuals through reparations.

 

Bryan argues that the measure is necessary to level the playing field for Black students, who remain a minority at both UC and CSU campuses. According to the latest university reports, Black students comprised about 4% of the CSU student body and 4.7% of the UC student body in 2023. 

 

“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,” Bryan told The Associated Press. He emphasizes the moral obligation to rectify these wrongs, asserting, “We have a moral responsibility to do all we can to right those wrongs.”

 

The bill’s text describes a descendant of slavery as “a person who, based on lineage, is a descendant of a chattel enslaved person of American chattel slavery.”

 

This proposed legislation echoes the recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force, a body established to study and suggest remedies for the perpetual harms of slavery and systemic racism. The task force’s 1,000-page report, released in June 2023, detailed a comprehensive plan for reparations, including potentially billions of dollars in payouts.

 

The bill also follows Gov. Gavin Newsom’s historic signing of a law formally apologizing for California’s role in perpetuating racism and discrimination against Black residents in September 2023. 

 

However, Newsom has also vetoed an eminent domain reparations bill in September that would have helped Black families reclaim property unjustly seized by the government, revealing the complexities and limitations of California’s reparations efforts.

 

Bryan’s bill faces several significant legal and political challenges. The most prominent is Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot measure that prohibits the state from considering race, sex, ethnicity, color, or national origin in employment, education, or contracting. 

 

This effectively outlawed affirmative action in public university admissions, a ban upheld by voters in 2020. Critics argue that the bill could be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent Proposition 209 by using ancestry as a proxy for race.

 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to ban affirmative action in college admissions creates a new legal landscape for diversity programs, casting further uncertainty on the bill’s fate. 

 

Some legal experts, like Andrew Quinio of the Pacific Legal Foundation, warn that the legislation could violate both the California Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling if ancestry is deemed a proxy for race.

 

The Center Square reported on an analysis shared by the National African American Reparations Commission, which suggests that White Californians might outnumber Black beneficiaries in an ancestry-based reparations program, potentially putting the bill at odds with its intended goal. 

 

This raises questions about how eligibility for admissions priority would be determined and whether a companion bill might be needed to establish a process for verifying descendant status.

 

Bryan’s bill also highlights legacy admissions, which favor the children of alums and donors, predominantly benefiting White and wealthy applicants. Critics argue that the Supreme Court’s decision to ban affirmative action while allowing legacy preferences exacerbates admissions inequalities for students of color.

 

The bill’s introduction comes as the incoming Trump administration signals a strong intent to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide. President-elect Trump has vowed to target federal funding for schools that defy his agenda and has appointed officials known for opposing DEI initiatives. 

 

California lawmakers have convened a special session to protect the state’s progressive policies, including potentially allocating more funds to the attorney general’s office to fight federal challenges.

 

President-elect Trump has been a vocal critic of DEI programs, labeling them as “woke” and discriminatory against White students. He has even hinted at providing “reparations” to White students whom he claims have been harmed by such policies by fining the offending institutions.

 

Previous attempts to pass reparations legislation in California have yielded mixed results, further illustrating the political obstacles ahead for Bryan’s bill. Several bills aimed at providing financial assistance or land reparations to Black descendants of enslaved people have failed, some due to high costs and others vetoed by Newsom. 

 

Voters also rejected a ballot measure that banned forced prison labor, another proposal that Bryan and members of the California Legislative Black Caucus endorsed.

 

Observers note that while some lawmakers support affirmative action policies, they may be hesitant to back this bill due to its close resemblance to affirmative action, a policy widely opposed by California voters. 

 

This highlights the challenge of reconciling the moral imperative of addressing racial disparities with the political realities of a state where voters have repeatedly rejected race-conscious policies.

 

As Bryan’s bill embarks on the legislative approval process, its fate remains uncertain. It will likely face intense scrutiny and debate within the legislature and the public. 

 

The bill faces a renewed threat to diversity initiatives from the incoming Trump administration and navigates a legal landscape reshaped by the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action. The legislation represents just the first of several anticipated reparations bills for 2025, signaling a continued push by lawmakers to advance racial justice initiatives, even amidst strong opposition.

 

Beginning in 2025, California assembly members and senators are now limited to filing a maximum of 35 bills a year, down from the previous limit of 50 for assembly members and 40 for senators.

 

For any inquiries or further information, please contact Jose Cervantes at JoseC.Press@pm.me