[TrumpCard]

The law says no discrimination.  The part about admissions rate relates to the requirement to self-report violations.

If the application asks for legacy status, that's an easy way to know if a university is discriminating.  

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Stanford would be willing to give up preferences for legacies and small donors as long as it could give preferences to major donors.  Let's also assume for the sake of argument that Stanford knows its major donors and can figure out which applicants are related to those major donors without sending questionnaires.  (We have to assume nothing in writing is needed because any writing probably would be made public.  There's a good chance that at least one major donor would disapprove of the preference and disclose the existence of the questionnaire). 

Even if those assumptions hold true, Stanford still would be vulnerable to detection because, if the AG were to investigate, the AG could subpoena records and testimony.

Also, the downside to being caught is substantial.  It's not just whatever punishment might be allowed under the law.  It's also the harm to Stanford's reputation from flagrantly violating California law.  That's the kind of thing U$C does.  

So, Stanford correctly concluded that the best policy is to simply decline the grants from the State of California.  Unfortunate result for Stanford, but Stanford made the right choice given the alternatives.

[TrumpCard]

The law says no discrimination.  The part about admissions rate relates to the requirement to self-report violations.

If the application asks for legacy status, that's an easy way to know if a university is discriminating.  

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Stanford would be willing to give up preferences for legacies and small donors as long as it could give preferences to major donors.  Let's also assume for the sake of argument that Stanford knows its major donors and can figure out which applicants are related to those major donors without sending questionnaires.  (We have to assume nothing in writing is needed because any writing probably would be made public.  There's a good chance that at least one major donor would disapprove of the preference and disclose the existence of the questionnaire). 

Even if those assumptions hold true, Stanford still would be vulnerable to detection because, if the AG were to investigate, the AG could subpoena records and testimony.

Also, the downside to being caught is substantial.  It's not just whatever punishment might be allowed under the law.  It's also the harm to Stanford's reputation from flagrantly violating California law.  That's the kind of thing U$C does.  

So, Stanford correctly concluded that the best policy is to simply decline the grants from the State of California.  Unfortunate result for Stanford, but Stanford made the right choice given the alternatives.