Newsom vetoes bill that would have granted priority college admission for descendants of slavery

"Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900. The governor thanked the bill's author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine "how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted." "This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery," Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. "These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.""

"The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity - a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term "slave" was used as a proxy for race. Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law."

Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed public and private colleges to grant admissions preferences to applicants descended from individuals enslaved in the United States before 1900. The governor noted institutions already possess authority to decide admissions preferences and urged them to review how, when, and if such preferences could be adopted. The measure defined eligibility by ancestry rather than race, with proponents saying that distinction separated it from banned affirmative action policies. Critics argued the ancestry criterion functioned as a racial proxy. Legal experts warned the measure likely would have faced court challenges if enacted.

Read at Los Angeles Times