[cctop]

The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?

I'd forgotten what the issue was so I had to look it up in the Daily archives...it was protesting Donald Kennedy's lack of action on what would now be called DEI initiatives:

Stanford Daily: Students seize Kennedy's office, 55 arrested

[cctop]

The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?

I'd forgotten what the issue was so I had to look it up in the Daily archives...it was protesting Donald Kennedy's lack of action on what would now be called DEI initiatives:

Stanford Daily: Students seize Kennedy's office, 55 arrested

[cardcrimson]

The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?

I'd forgotten what the issue was so I had to look it up in the Daily archives...it was protesting Donald Kennedy's lack of action on what would now be called DEI initiatives:

Stanford Daily: Students seize Kennedy's office, 55 arrested

Thanks for the info. Was never a fan of our Donald. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?

I'd forgotten what the issue was so I had to look it up in the Daily archives...it was protesting Donald Kennedy's lack of action on what would now be called DEI initiatives:

Stanford Daily: Students seize Kennedy's office, 55 arrested

Thanks for the info. Was never a fan of our Donald. . . .

[Hieronymus]

1712111511[/url]']

1712108600[/url]']
The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?

I'd forgotten what the issue was so I had to look it up in the Daily archives...it was protesting Donald Kennedy's lack of action on what would now be called DEI initiatives:

Stanford Daily: Students seize Kennedy's office, 55 arrested

During this era, I was a Frosh at Ujamaa when we made the national news for a racist dorm incident and follow on actions. I think we experienced that year very differently then the overall campus did. I wonder how different the experiences for a Jewish or Muslim kid are as compared to the general campus community this year. I suspect there is again a large difference; watching it and living it are not the same thing. It can feel awfully lonely when the overall campus is in turmoil, and it is disconcerting to realize the adults sometimes don’t know any more then you do.

[Hieronymus]

1712111511[/url]']

1712108600[/url]']
The late 80's were fairly benign, so I'm almost afraid to ask, what were they protesting that required occupying the president's office? Yachts bedsheets and weddings to grad students?

I'd forgotten what the issue was so I had to look it up in the Daily archives...it was protesting Donald Kennedy's lack of action on what would now be called DEI initiatives:

Stanford Daily: Students seize Kennedy's office, 55 arrested

During this era, I was a Frosh at Ujamaa when we made the national news for a racist dorm incident and follow on actions. I think we experienced that year very differently then the overall campus did. I wonder how different the experiences for a Jewish or Muslim kid are as compared to the general campus community this year. I suspect there is again a large difference; watching it and living it are not the same thing. It can feel awfully lonely when the overall campus is in turmoil, and it is disconcerting to realize the adults sometimes don’t know any more then you do.

[needle]

I know there are lots of people more than a little willing to criticize the ADL these days, but it came out with "Anti-semitism Report Card" grades for college campuses based on "administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus."

FWIW, Stanford was one of 13 universities to get an F (85 schools were graded).

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-...university

[needle]

I know there are lots of people more than a little willing to criticize the ADL these days, but it came out with "Anti-semitism Report Card" grades for college campuses based on "administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus."

FWIW, Stanford was one of 13 universities to get an F (85 schools were graded).

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-...university

[oldalum]

I know there are lots of people more than a little willing to criticize the ADL these days, but it came out with "Anti-semitism Report Card" grades for college campuses based on "administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus."

FWIW, Stanford was one of 13 universities to get an F (85 schools were graded).

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-...university

With a quick search I could not find a similar multidimensional anti-Muslim report card on college campuses, but Muslim Campus Life has a Campus Islamophobia Tracker. Of 101 "Reported Incidents of Islamophobia & Anti-Muslim Racism" since Sept 2023, 5 were at Stanford. Harvard dominates the list.

[oldalum]

I know there are lots of people more than a little willing to criticize the ADL these days, but it came out with "Anti-semitism Report Card" grades for college campuses based on "administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus."

FWIW, Stanford was one of 13 universities to get an F (85 schools were graded).

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-...university

With a quick search I could not find a similar multidimensional anti-Muslim report card on college campuses, but Muslim Campus Life has a Campus Islamophobia Tracker. Of 101 "Reported Incidents of Islamophobia & Anti-Muslim Racism" since Sept 2023, 5 were at Stanford. Harvard dominates the list.

[Mick]

I know there are lots of people more than a little willing to criticize the ADL these days, but it came out with "Anti-semitism Report Card" grades for college campuses based on "administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus."

FWIW, Stanford was one of 13 universities to get an F (85 schools were graded).

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-...university

With a quick search I could not find a similar multidimensional anti-Muslim report card on college campuses, but Muslim Campus Life has a Campus Islamophobia Tracker. Of 101 "Reported Incidents of Islamophobia & Anti-Muslim Racism" since Sept 2023, 5 were at Stanford. Harvard dominates the list.

Without looking, I'm guessing that no anti-Christian or anti-atheist bias report card exists.

[Mick]

I know there are lots of people more than a little willing to criticize the ADL these days, but it came out with "Anti-semitism Report Card" grades for college campuses based on "administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus."

FWIW, Stanford was one of 13 universities to get an F (85 schools were graded).

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-...university

With a quick search I could not find a similar multidimensional anti-Muslim report card on college campuses, but Muslim Campus Life has a Campus Islamophobia Tracker. Of 101 "Reported Incidents of Islamophobia & Anti-Muslim Racism" since Sept 2023, 5 were at Stanford. Harvard dominates the list.

Without looking, I'm guessing that no anti-Christian or anti-atheist bias report card exists.

[Snorlax94]

Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.

I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.

Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?

What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?

Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?

Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.

As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.

[Snorlax94]

Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.

I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.

Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?

What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?

Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?

Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.

As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.

[2006alum]

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I thought the double entendre in the piece's headline was precisely to suggest the "war" "at" Stanford is in fact not "the war" nor really "at" or about Stanford. But our reporter at large is based there, and so naturally writing from lived experience, and some of the activists at Stanford are behaving as if they are the front lines of the "war" notwithstanding being so fully removed from it. 

What else can a reader take away from the last few paragraphs?:

At one rally last fall, a speaker expressed disillusionment about the power of “peaceful resistance” on college campuses. “What is there left to do but to take up arms?” The crowd cheered as he said Israel must be destroyed. But what would happen to its citizens? I’d prefer to believe that most protesters chanting “Palestine is Arab” and shouting that we must “smash the Zionist settler state” don’t actually think Jews should be killed en masse. But can one truly be so ignorant as to advocate widespread violence in the name of peace?

When the world is rendered in black-and-white—portrayed as a simple fight between colonizer and colonized—the answer is yes. Solutions, by this logic, are absolute: Israel or Palestine, nothing in between. Either you support liberation of the oppressed or you support genocide. Either Stanford is all good or all bad; all in favor of free speech or all authoritarian; all anti-Semitic or all Islamophobic.

At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.

“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.
“But are you a Zionist?”
“Yes.”
“Then we are enemies.”

If his point was something quite specific to Stanford, I sure missed it.

[2006alum]

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I thought the double entendre in the piece's headline was precisely to suggest the "war" "at" Stanford is in fact not "the war" nor really "at" or about Stanford. But our reporter at large is based there, and so naturally writing from lived experience, and some of the activists at Stanford are behaving as if they are the front lines of the "war" notwithstanding being so fully removed from it. 

What else can a reader take away from the last few paragraphs?:

At one rally last fall, a speaker expressed disillusionment about the power of “peaceful resistance” on college campuses. “What is there left to do but to take up arms?” The crowd cheered as he said Israel must be destroyed. But what would happen to its citizens? I’d prefer to believe that most protesters chanting “Palestine is Arab” and shouting that we must “smash the Zionist settler state” don’t actually think Jews should be killed en masse. But can one truly be so ignorant as to advocate widespread violence in the name of peace?

When the world is rendered in black-and-white—portrayed as a simple fight between colonizer and colonized—the answer is yes. Solutions, by this logic, are absolute: Israel or Palestine, nothing in between. Either you support liberation of the oppressed or you support genocide. Either Stanford is all good or all bad; all in favor of free speech or all authoritarian; all anti-Semitic or all Islamophobic.

At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.

“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.
“But are you a Zionist?”
“Yes.”
“Then we are enemies.”

If his point was something quite specific to Stanford, I sure missed it.

[Mick]

New 2025 FIRE free speech on campus report just came out. U of Virginia received highest/most free speech score. Oregon State, of all places, received the highest former Pac-12 score (current Pac-12, too, come to think of it), and ranked 8th of 251 universities.

Harvard ranked dead last, followed by Columbia, NYU, Penn, Barnard, Syracuse and our dear departed friends at U$C, ranked #245. Bad and getting worse. Worst UC was Davis (#239), Berkeley (#225) not far behind. Freest UC was Irvine, ranked #74 and Merced at #79. Georgetown worst religious college (#241), but there were a few that didn't make the major college ranking that would have finished behind G'town (St. Louis U).

SCU and SJSU were middle of the pack at #134 and #168, respectively. 

https://5666503.fs1.hubspotusercontent-n...R_2025.pdf

https://reports.collegepulse.com/college...-2024-2025

[Mick]

New 2025 FIRE free speech on campus report just came out. U of Virginia received highest/most free speech score. Oregon State, of all places, received the highest former Pac-12 score (current Pac-12, too, come to think of it), and ranked 8th of 251 universities.

Harvard ranked dead last, followed by Columbia, NYU, Penn, Barnard, Syracuse and our dear departed friends at U$C, ranked #245. Bad and getting worse. Worst UC was Davis (#239), Berkeley (#225) not far behind. Freest UC was Irvine, ranked #74 and Merced at #79. Georgetown worst religious college (#241), but there were a few that didn't make the major college ranking that would have finished behind G'town (St. Louis U).

SCU and SJSU were middle of the pack at #134 and #168, respectively. 

https://5666503.fs1.hubspotusercontent-n...R_2025.pdf

https://reports.collegepulse.com/college...-2024-2025

[TrumpCard]

Claremont McKenna top 10, Pomona bottom 10, same campus.

[TrumpCard]

Claremont McKenna top 10, Pomona bottom 10, same campus.

[Mick]

Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.

I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.

Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?

What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?

Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?

Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.

As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.

There was a Pew Research study in 2022 in which 75% of the respondents believed that legacy status should not be considered in college admissions.

Colleges in Illinois already face that status. Governor Pritzker signed a bill in Illinois effectively outlawing legacy admissions. Governor Newsom is prepared to do something similar, but less onerous. Which is interesting, because the alma mater that we share has more legacy attendees than all but two colleges in California. And not meaning to be political, but the California prohibition enjoys bipartisan support. The UCs banned it in 1998, so it wouldn't affect them. Only Stanford, USC and SCU admit a sizable percentage of legacies.

The bill itself is slightly watered down. At one time, schools faced financial penalties. That element has been removed. All the schools have to do now is publish the names of the legacies online and publish additional demographic data, including status of athletic admits and income of admitted students.

[Mick]

Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.

I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.

Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?

What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?

Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?

Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.

As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.

There was a Pew Research study in 2022 in which 75% of the respondents believed that legacy status should not be considered in college admissions.

Colleges in Illinois already face that status. Governor Pritzker signed a bill in Illinois effectively outlawing legacy admissions. Governor Newsom is prepared to do something similar, but less onerous. Which is interesting, because the alma mater that we share has more legacy attendees than all but two colleges in California. And not meaning to be political, but the California prohibition enjoys bipartisan support. The UCs banned it in 1998, so it wouldn't affect them. Only Stanford, USC and SCU admit a sizable percentage of legacies.

The bill itself is slightly watered down. At one time, schools faced financial penalties. That element has been removed. All the schools have to do now is publish the names of the legacies online and publish additional demographic data, including status of athletic admits and income of admitted students.

[TrumpCard]

There was a Pew Research study in 2022 in which 75% of the respondents believed that legacy status should not be considered in college admissions.

Colleges in Illinois already face that status. Governor Pritzker signed a bill in Illinois effectively outlawing legacy admissions. Governor Newsom is prepared to do something similar, but less onerous. Which is interesting, because the alma mater that we share has more legacy attendees than all but two colleges in California. And not meaning to be political, but the California prohibition enjoys bipartisan support. The UCs banned it in 1998, so it wouldn't affect them. Only Stanford, USC and SCU admit a sizable percentage of legacies.

The bill itself is slightly watered down. At one time, schools faced financial penalties. That element has been removed. All the schools have to do now is publish the names of the legacies online and publish additional demographic data, including status of athletic admits and income of admitted students.

Of course the general public is against legacy preference in admissions.  They are patently unfair to non-legacy applicants.  
The unfairness of legacy preference, however, does not imply that legacy preference should be illegal.
We reserve legal protections against discrimination for protected classes who've historically suffered invidious discrimination.
At least at Stanford, considering the long history of affirmative action, non-legacy status probably isn't heavily correlated with race anymore.
Universities consider personality and "fit" by having alumni conduct interviews of prospective students.
I see no reason that California law should treat legacy status as fundamentally different from interviews.
Arguably, if legacy preference is made illegal, California may as well just dictate that universities must admit students with the highest GPA and AP test scores, ignoring all other criteria as "non-objective."

[TrumpCard]

There was a Pew Research study in 2022 in which 75% of the respondents believed that legacy status should not be considered in college admissions.

Colleges in Illinois already face that status. Governor Pritzker signed a bill in Illinois effectively outlawing legacy admissions. Governor Newsom is prepared to do something similar, but less onerous. Which is interesting, because the alma mater that we share has more legacy attendees than all but two colleges in California. And not meaning to be political, but the California prohibition enjoys bipartisan support. The UCs banned it in 1998, so it wouldn't affect them. Only Stanford, USC and SCU admit a sizable percentage of legacies.

The bill itself is slightly watered down. At one time, schools faced financial penalties. That element has been removed. All the schools have to do now is publish the names of the legacies online and publish additional demographic data, including status of athletic admits and income of admitted students.

Of course the general public is against legacy preference in admissions.  They are patently unfair to non-legacy applicants.  
The unfairness of legacy preference, however, does not imply that legacy preference should be illegal.
We reserve legal protections against discrimination for protected classes who've historically suffered invidious discrimination.
At least at Stanford, considering the long history of affirmative action, non-legacy status probably isn't heavily correlated with race anymore.
Universities consider personality and "fit" by having alumni conduct interviews of prospective students.
I see no reason that California law should treat legacy status as fundamentally different from interviews.
Arguably, if legacy preference is made illegal, California may as well just dictate that universities must admit students with the highest GPA and AP test scores, ignoring all other criteria as "non-objective."

[Snorlax94]

Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.

I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.

Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?

What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?

Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?

Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.

As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.

There was a Pew Research study in 2022 in which 75% of the respondents believed that legacy status should not be considered in college admissions.

Colleges in Illinois already face that status. Governor Pritzker signed a bill in Illinois effectively outlawing legacy admissions. Governor Newsom is prepared to do something similar, but less onerous. Which is interesting, because the alma mater that we share has more legacy attendees than all but two colleges in California. And not meaning to be political, but the California prohibition enjoys bipartisan support. The UCs banned it in 1998, so it wouldn't affect them. Only Stanford, USC and SCU admit a sizable percentage of legacies.

The bill itself is slightly watered down. At one time, schools faced financial penalties. That element has been removed. All the schools have to do now is publish the names of the legacies online and publish additional demographic data, including status of athletic admits and income of admitted students.

One thing — I don’t think the bill would require the university to publish the names of legacy admits — which would violate privacy. They’d be required to publish summary information, the number of students, and presumably their racial composition, income, and qualifications relative to the rest the admit pool.

Then, to my understanding, the state would publish the information on some kind of “website of shame.”

It’s on Newsom’s desk still, to my understanding, unless there’s been some new development.

[Snorlax94]

Well I will try to avoid politics by not discussing the merits of the demonstrations, and try to restrict myself to coverage of Stanford.

I think Baker’s article, The War at Stanford, has aged poorly. As several others have pointed out, it makes it sound like this was happening at only Stanford, or that Stanford was the center of a war, when it is clearly not the national hotspot for this issue.

Did the author visit any other campuses or even quickly familiarize himself with what was happening elsewhere before painting Stanford as the war zone?

What next, an “expose” that the water at Stanford contains microplastics?

Or a scientific discovery revealing that the average daily temperature at Stanford is slowly increasing?

Not every topic should center around Stanford, and if someone keeps writing pieces about scandals that occur at Stanford, when the larger flashpoint of the issue lies elsewhere, the writer can come off as sensationalistic, just trying to drag a major brand through the mud.

As I read about the demonstrations, it occurred to me that the current turmoil provides an example of how legacy admissions benefit universities. If someone grew up admiring Stanford, visiting it, wanting to become part of its community, watching their parents maintain a lifelong commitment supporting the university’s mission, they’d probably be a lot less likely to tear the place apart if they were admitted.

There was a Pew Research study in 2022 in which 75% of the respondents believed that legacy status should not be considered in college admissions.

Colleges in Illinois already face that status. Governor Pritzker signed a bill in Illinois effectively outlawing legacy admissions. Governor Newsom is prepared to do something similar, but less onerous. Which is interesting, because the alma mater that we share has more legacy attendees than all but two colleges in California. And not meaning to be political, but the California prohibition enjoys bipartisan support. The UCs banned it in 1998, so it wouldn't affect them. Only Stanford, USC and SCU admit a sizable percentage of legacies.

The bill itself is slightly watered down. At one time, schools faced financial penalties. That element has been removed. All the schools have to do now is publish the names of the legacies online and publish additional demographic data, including status of athletic admits and income of admitted students.

One thing — I don’t think the bill would require the university to publish the names of legacy admits — which would violate privacy. They’d be required to publish summary information, the number of students, and presumably their racial composition, income, and qualifications relative to the rest the admit pool.

Then, to my understanding, the state would publish the information on some kind of “website of shame.”

It’s on Newsom’s desk still, to my understanding, unless there’s been some new development.

[Mick]

7/1/24 Chronicle article on legacy admissions. High points:

- There's an existing law in place, enacted in 2019 in the wake of the Varsity Blues scandal. That law expires this year.
- Bill is AB1780, would outlaw entirely legacy and donor-driven admissions by 9/1/25. Early versions of the bill had seven-figure civil fines.
- Schools that continue the practice as of 6/30/26 will have to disclose donor status, income brackets and "other information"
- Five private universities, other than Stanford, released legacy data, including SCU, USC, Harvey Mudd, Claremont McKenna and Northeastern (f/k/a Mills). 64 other private universities gave no preferential treatment to legacies or donors
- Stanford had 295 legacy admissions in 2023, all of whom met the university's admissions standards, and 20 other admits with no previous affiliation, but had relatives with a "history of philanthropy."
- In 2020, UC Berekely admitted at least 55 underqualified students based on connections and donations. Richard Blum, CBRE's Chair and husband of a U.S. Senator, had been helping friends and family get into UC Berkeley for years.
- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.
- Santa Clara had 38, Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd had 15 each.
- Data will be provided in the aggregate to prevent identification of individuals.

Private California colleges admit fewer legacies ahead of possible ban (sfchronicle.com)

Text of the Bill: Bill Text - AB-1780 Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition.

[Mick]

7/1/24 Chronicle article on legacy admissions. High points:

- There's an existing law in place, enacted in 2019 in the wake of the Varsity Blues scandal. That law expires this year.
- Bill is AB1780, would outlaw entirely legacy and donor-driven admissions by 9/1/25. Early versions of the bill had seven-figure civil fines.
- Schools that continue the practice as of 6/30/26 will have to disclose donor status, income brackets and "other information"
- Five private universities, other than Stanford, released legacy data, including SCU, USC, Harvey Mudd, Claremont McKenna and Northeastern (f/k/a Mills). 64 other private universities gave no preferential treatment to legacies or donors
- Stanford had 295 legacy admissions in 2023, all of whom met the university's admissions standards, and 20 other admits with no previous affiliation, but had relatives with a "history of philanthropy."
- In 2020, UC Berekely admitted at least 55 underqualified students based on connections and donations. Richard Blum, CBRE's Chair and husband of a U.S. Senator, had been helping friends and family get into UC Berkeley for years.
- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.
- Santa Clara had 38, Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd had 15 each.
- Data will be provided in the aggregate to prevent identification of individuals.

Private California colleges admit fewer legacies ahead of possible ban (sfchronicle.com)

Text of the Bill: Bill Text - AB-1780 Independent institutions of higher education: legacy and donor preference in admissions: prohibition.

[82lsju]

Stanford report on legacy admissions referenced in the SF Chronicle article

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...r-stanford

[82lsju]

Stanford report on legacy admissions referenced in the SF Chronicle article

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...r-stanford

[newguy]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

[newguy]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

[old spanish trail]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

[old spanish trail]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

[Treebound]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process.   SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU.  Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C.   It's a very well known path by many trojan families.  Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

[Treebound]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process.   SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU.  Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C.   It's a very well known path by many trojan families.  Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

[Mick]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process.   SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU.  Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C.   It's a very well known path by many trojan families.  Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

When my older son was applying to colleges, I suggested USC because, you know...good school. He replied "I'd rather go to a JC."  

When my younger son and I were returning from SoCal on a trip, I convinced him to tour the USC campus because, you know...good school. We were on the campus for all of 11 minutes when he turned on his heel and headed back to the car. I said "Wait, don't you want to see the public service building?" Without breaking stride, he called over his shoulder "you can, if you want. I'm not going here..."

My cousin went to USC for a semester and couldn't wait to transfer out. I asked him why he wanted to transfer and he said there was a lot of unintended irony around the rich kid vibes of the campus. I asked for an example, he said, "I worked for the student paper taking photos during the semester I was there. I took photos at a fundraiser that a sorority hosted to raise funds for child workers in southeast Asia. The vehicle the sorority chose to raise the funds? A fashion show...in all likelihood, with clothes made by the children for whom they were raising funds."

[Mick]

- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process.   SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU.  Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C.   It's a very well known path by many trojan families.  Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

When my older son was applying to colleges, I suggested USC because, you know...good school. He replied "I'd rather go to a JC."  

When my younger son and I were returning from SoCal on a trip, I convinced him to tour the USC campus because, you know...good school. We were on the campus for all of 11 minutes when he turned on his heel and headed back to the car. I said "Wait, don't you want to see the public service building?" Without breaking stride, he called over his shoulder "you can, if you want. I'm not going here..."

My cousin went to USC for a semester and couldn't wait to transfer out. I asked him why he wanted to transfer and he said there was a lot of unintended irony around the rich kid vibes of the campus. I asked for an example, he said, "I worked for the student paper taking photos during the semester I was there. I took photos at a fundraiser that a sorority hosted to raise funds for child workers in southeast Asia. The vehicle the sorority chose to raise the funds? A fashion show...in all likelihood, with clothes made by the children for whom they were raising funds."

[SkiBum80]

1726357784[/url]']

1726353876[/url]']

1726347787[/url]']

1726338228[/url]']

1726330122[/url]']
- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process.   SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU.  Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C.   It's a very well known path by many trojan families.  Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

When my older son was applying to colleges, I suggested USC because, you know...good school. He replied "I'd rather go to a JC."  

When my younger son and I were returning from SoCal on a trip, I convinced him to tour the USC campus because, you know...good school. We were on the campus for all of 11 minutes when he turned on his heel and headed back to the car. I said "Wait, don't you want to see the public service building?" Without breaking stride, he called over his shoulder "you can, if you want. I'm not going here..."

My cousin went to USC for a semester and couldn't wait to transfer out. I asked him why he wanted to transfer and he said there was a lot of unintended irony around the rich kid vibes of the campus. I asked for an example, he said, "I worked for the student paper taking photos during the semester I was there. I took photos at a fundraiser that a sorority hosted to raise funds for child workers in southeast Asia. The vehicle the sorority chose to raise the funds? A fashion show...in all likelihood, with clothes made by the children for whom they were raising funds."

My colleague had a wife who was USC grad.
He used to joke about it being University of Second Choice, University of Spoiled Children, etc.
But funny enough, never in her presence.
On game day he’d leave the house to avoid her intense follow of the game, including possible yelling, and he didn’t want to be an innocent in the line of fire, or worse, possibly blurt out something derogatory about her school.
I say “had” because they are divorced.

[SkiBum80]

1726357784[/url]']

1726353876[/url]']

1726347787[/url]']

1726338228[/url]']

1726330122[/url]']
- USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process.   SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU.  Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C.   It's a very well known path by many trojan families.  Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

When my older son was applying to colleges, I suggested USC because, you know...good school. He replied "I'd rather go to a JC."  

When my younger son and I were returning from SoCal on a trip, I convinced him to tour the USC campus because, you know...good school. We were on the campus for all of 11 minutes when he turned on his heel and headed back to the car. I said "Wait, don't you want to see the public service building?" Without breaking stride, he called over his shoulder "you can, if you want. I'm not going here..."

My cousin went to USC for a semester and couldn't wait to transfer out. I asked him why he wanted to transfer and he said there was a lot of unintended irony around the rich kid vibes of the campus. I asked for an example, he said, "I worked for the student paper taking photos during the semester I was there. I took photos at a fundraiser that a sorority hosted to raise funds for child workers in southeast Asia. The vehicle the sorority chose to raise the funds? A fashion show...in all likelihood, with clothes made by the children for whom they were raising funds."

My colleague had a wife who was USC grad.
He used to joke about it being University of Second Choice, University of Spoiled Children, etc.
But funny enough, never in her presence.
On game day he’d leave the house to avoid her intense follow of the game, including possible yelling, and he didn’t want to be an innocent in the line of fire, or worse, possibly blurt out something derogatory about her school.
I say “had” because they are divorced.