On September 12th, the California legislature passed a law that would allow public and private universities in the state to give admissions preferences to descendants of slavery. If the governor signs the bill, it would take effect in California, which was never a slave state. Not many can trace their family lineage back to the 1800s, so the law will, in all likelihood, be used to reintroduce the consideration of race in admissions, a practice which California voters resoundingly rejected in a referendum in 2020, and which the Supreme Court ruled illegal in 2023.
While this specific policy reform is likely to be well received by the state’s elite universities, other state policies, including a recently passed law banning legacy preferences, are likely to stir conflict between the state and universities. Indeed, USC’s president recently announced that the university will continue practicing legacy preferences, and in doing so ignore state law.
This brazen move by USC implies that the university is confident that California will not enforce its law banning legacy admissions. After all, California has looked the other way for decades as colleges violated the state law banning affirmative action, which has been in place since 1996. USC has good reason to assume that the state will be reluctant to take action against them on policies regarding admissions.
These developments provide insight into fights that may soon take place in New York State, another densely populated state with a liberal-dominated government. If California’s law to reintroduce race as a factor in college admissions is not quickly struck down, Albany may pass a similar measure. A bill that would ban legacy admissions is moving through the New York legislature, and should it pass, universities like Cornell, Columbia, and NYU may look to USC when deciding whether to follow the law or to try to ignore it.
Cornell’s administration has generally shown itself to be in favor of affirmative action and practices legacy admissions. Based on those sentiments, it appears possible that Cornell University may eagerly reintroduce race-conscious admissions should the state give the green light, and may ignore state laws banning legacy admissions should USC not face consequences for doing so.
In the best interest of the University, Cornell should do neither of those things. Any attempt to reintroduce affirmative action will draw the ire of the federal government and likely cause lawsuits to be filed. Additionally, New York State may choose to enforce its restrictions on legacy admissions more stringently than California. Beyond ideological beliefs, it will be extremely unwise simply from a practical standpoint to simultaneously fight the conservative federal government and the liberal state government. As such, for the sake of not only fairness but also stability, Cornell should obey the existing federal guidelines against affirmative action and any potential future state laws on legacy admissions.
