AB-7 proposes a controversial admissions preference for descendants of slavery, sparking debate over fairness and constitutionality.
A newly proposed California Assembly bill would grant preferential treatment in college admissions to students who are direct descendants of enslaved individuals.
The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan, seeks to address the historical impact of slavery on African American communities, has ignited debate over race-based policies, constitutionality, and the future of merit-based education in the state.
What is AB-7?
AB-7 mandates that California public universities, including the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems, provide special admissions consideration to applicants who can prove lineage to enslaved ancestors.
“We never talk about legacies of harm, the legacy of slavery, the legacy of exclusion.” Issac Bryan, creator of AB-7, said in a recent LA Times Article.
Furthermore, in a press conference, Bryan says, “All of those gains are under active threat and attack by a federal government that has sought to erase us.”
The bill aligns with broader reparations discussions in California, which have gained traction recently. However, critics argue that such measures promote racial division rather than unity.
How Would AB-7 Impact California?
If passed, AB-7 would reinstate race-based preferences in higher education—a policy that California voters explicitly rejected in 1996 with Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in public institutions. Voters also defeated a later attempt to repeal Prop 209 via Proposition 16 in 2020.
The bill raises significant legal concerns, as the California Constitution explicitly prohibits racial preferences in public education, employment, and contracting.
“This bill directly contradicts voter mandates,” said Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego and a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member.
Then, on X, she further said, “The fact that Californians have rejected racial preferences both decisively and repeatedly should be enough to end the game of pandering to voters by promising unconstitutional programs that provide funding and benefits based on race.”
The legislation also poses practical challenges regarding verification—determining whether an applicant qualifies as a descendant of enslaved individuals would require genealogical tracing, potentially creating an administrative burden and opening the door to fraudulent claims.
“It can be costly, time-consuming, and emotional,” says Adrienne Abiodun, a descendant of a once-enslaved man named Phillip Branch.
Pros and Cons of AB-7
Supporters Argue:
- The bill aims to rectify historical injustices that have resulted in educational disparities for African Americans
- Many Americans argue descendants of slaves continue to face economic and social disadvantages that impact college access and success
- It aligns with broader reparative justice initiatives that seek opportunities for historically marginalized groups
Assembly Member Bryan defended the bill, saying, “There is a growing understanding of California’s role in perpetuating the inequalities that arose from slavery, and there’s a willingness to try to rectify that harm, to heal that harm.”
Critics Say:
- Some critics of AB-7 include the Heritage Foundation, stating that it is unconstitutional under California and federal law, making it vulnerable to legal challenges
- It contradicts voter decisions to uphold merit-based admissions and remove racial preferences from the equation
- The policy could lead to resentment among other disadvantaged groups who do not qualify, further inflaming racial tensions
A Return to Racial Preferences?
Opponents of AB-7 argue that the bill represents a dangerous step backward, undermining the principle of equal opportunity by instituting policies based on race rather than individual merit.
Critics point to California’s repeated rejection of affirmative action policies as evidence that voters prefer race-neutral solutions to educational inequality.
Moreover, with race-based admissions policies recently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, AB-7 could face immediate legal challenges if enacted.
“Race-based preferences are not the way forward,” said Ward Connerly, former University of California Regent and advocate for Prop 209. “We need to focus on socioeconomic-based solutions that help all disadvantaged students, regardless of race.”
Many argue that the state should focus on improving K-12 education, expanding economic opportunities, and offering need-based financial aid rather than implementing race-based preferences that may be legally and politically unsustainable.
As AB-7 moves through the California Legislature, it faces a steep uphill battle. With strong opposition from constitutional scholars, conservative leaders, and voters who have twice rejected similar measures, the bill highlights the ongoing debate over addressing historical injustices while maintaining fairness in college admissions.
Whether AB-7 ultimately succeeds or fails, it serves as a clear indicator that California’s fight over affirmative action and reparations is far from over.
