Here’s a gift article from today’s NYT. It reports on the state of California now banning legacy admissions even for private colleges.
Aren’t private institutions exempt from this type of thing, in the same way that private clubs can ban Blacks, Jews, women, etc. from membership? As a Canadian, I am probably misunderstanding things so I appreciate your clarification in advance.
Private clubs can’t discriminate based on protected classes (e.g. race or religion).
Gender is a gray area.
Other than that a private club can discriminate all it wants (e.g. no one younger than 30).
A private college would have to follow the same rules.
Private colleges are not “clubs” – i.e. free associations of individuals. They’re generally nonprofit employers and subject to the same amount of regulatory authority of the state as any other nonprofit.
Now I’m definitely confused. Are legacy admissions a protected class?
No, but they can definitely be a fig leaf for discrimination.
A private college could admit a 99% white freshman class and just shrug and say, “Well, they’re all the kids of white parents who are alumni of this school, so…”
Definitely not.
If I have a club I can say if your dad was a member you automatically can be a member.
I can’t say if you are black you can’t be a member (protected class…and swap white for black or whatever).
The law mentions
“Independent institution of higher education” means a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance.
I think the implication is that removal of the state-funded student financial assistance is the stick by which this rule can be enforced.
I don’t think California needs a “stick.” States can (within limits) regulate corporations that operate within their jurisdiction and these “independent institutions” are private, non-profit corporations registered in California and subject to the laws thereof. All states regulate private colleges and universities to some extent, although it varies a lot.
Yeah, states can do pretty much anything, so long as there’s no federal law, or anything in the state’s constitution, that says otherwise. What do you think would stop California from doing this?
The San Francisco Chronicle article on the new law says
Critics of AB1780, including the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, were able to soften the bill this year by eliminating what would have been hefty financial penalties on violators.
Instead, the penalty for practicing legacy preferences will be public exposure.
Schools will have to post details annually about who benefited from the preferential treatment, though without identifying individual students.
And an article from February of this year in the Los Angeles Times says
The bill, AB 1780, would prohibit colleges and universities from participating in the Cal Grant program if they provide preferential treatment in admissions to an applicant related to a donor or alumni. The Cal Grant program provides financial aid covering full tuition and fees to qualified financially needy students at UC and CSU and some support for students at private institutions. Some living expenses are also provided on a limited basis.
Presumably removal of the Cal Grant participation is the “financial penalties” that the SF Chronicle article mentioned.
Is there any legal framework for the right to grant degrees?
Here in Oz the right to grant degrees is controlled by the states, and universities are usually given that right by statute. You can set up a private tertiary institution, but it can’t grant students an actual degree unless the state gives the institution the right.
U.S. states have authority over whether institutions physically present in their state may offer degrees and under what conditions. They’re in fact required by federal regulations to have a process for authorizing degree-granting institutions. There are some exemptions, such as institutions that offer strictly religious instruction or other “degrees” not of an academic or vocational nature.
States vary widely in how directly they exercise that authority. They generally require that the institution be accredited by a recognized accreditor. Some have state agencies or statewide systems that review and approve degree programs, some allow individual governing boards to make those decisions. But at the very least, a private college or university will need state approval to issue degrees, whether that’s through statute, agency approval or some other process.
Most universities are physically dependent on location, and therefore have to operate under State laws. It’s not like USC can just move to another State. 
Why can’t USC move to South Carolina? It would still be USC. 
Well, because there’s already the USC Gamecocks in South Carolina.
Somehow I think a meeting between the USC Gamecocks and the USC Trojans is meant to be.
Of course the deciding contest would be a rubber match.
Most regulations affecting colleges and universities are imposed by the power of the purse. The federal government conditions student loan/grant eligibility on compliance with Title IX, for example.
Though here it appears California failed to even do that.
I assume the implied threat is that disclosure of serious non-compliance may turn public opinion sufficiently that all the lobbying in the world (in the valley?) would not be able to stop a future law from creating stiff financial penalties.
I’m not sure what say the state has in federal student loan programs…
I assume too that universities enjoy some form of benefit of tax-free status in the state for things like endowment funds, property taxes, income taxes, etc. and assorted benefits of non-profit status.
The problem I see is that most of the colleges where legacy elitism seems to be an issue are not California.
Stanford and USC are the two often mentioned in articles as being affected by the new rules.