There needs to be a Federal Criminal Investigation into the Admissions Policies and Finances of the Office of the President of the University of California

Capistrano Unified School District Resolution No. 1920-27, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIORITIZATION OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENT STUDENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA  CUSD BOT Meeting September 18, 2019 Agenda Item #53 at page 897 

The Resolution passed unanimously except for Trustee Gila Jones who left the meeting early

The People should ask all our elected leaders to join together and strengthen CUSD’s Resolution by calling for a Federal Investigation into the University of California Office of the President for discriminatory admissions practices that deny California resident students who graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission to an appropriate campus within the UC system. The University of California denies 10,700 California resident students a year admission to a campus of their choice; and instead, offers them admission to UC Merced. These are California’s best and brightest students who deserve admission to flagship schools like a UC Berkeley and UCLA and are in fact guaranteed a seat at an appropriate campus under State law based solely on merit. According to the California Auditor and the LAO Report on Higher Education 99.1% of the students offer UC Merced decline to enroll. This allows the UC to have 10,700 seats on all campuses to sell to out of state and International students. 

The UC’s manipulation of the referral pool to UC Merced is a fraud upon the public. 

The Auditor felt the conduct of the University of California was so egregious that the California taxpayers deserved recompense,

Do not allow this to continue- demand an end to this abuse of California’s best and brightest students and the theft of billions in California taxpayer dollars.

The data shows that 206 Capistrano Unified school district students were effected by this last year. Instead of spending $15,000 per year on tuition at a UC, these families are now forced to go out-of-state or to private colleges and Universities in order to enroll in an appropriate school. They face an additional $160,000 in tuition over 4 years. That is money that leaves our local economy and places a great financial burden on California families.

The following are additional allegations:

QUICK LINKS

Total Undergraduate New Students (Freshman and Transfer)  | Applicants | Admits | Enrollees |

Freshman Admissions by Residency | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

Freshman Admissions by Source School Type | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

Transfer Admissions by Residency | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

Transfer Admissions by Source School Type | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

International Student Data

STATEMENT OF FACTS  

UC ADMISSIONS POLICIES AND FINANCIAL DECISIONS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CALIFORNIA RESIDENT STUDENTS

1. The University of California is a taxpayer funded public land grant institution, and as such, California residents are to be given priority enrollment. 

2. The University of California is a public trust, administered by “The Regents of the University of California,” with full powers of organization and government. The President of the University of California is not empowered to unilaterally set policies that discriminate against California resident students and violate state and federal law. California Constitution Article 9 Section 9.

3. The UC Master Plan for Higher Education has an "Access Guarantee" that guarantees all First-Time Freshman admission to the University of California based solely on merit, as a matter of law.  

A "First-Time Freshman" is a California resident student who graduated in the top 12.5% or (1/8th) of their high school graduating class, and is entering the UC directly from high school as a freshman in college.

From the original UC Master Plan for Higher Education page 4 and 73.

4. The "Access Guarantee" of the UC Master Plan is for first-time freshmen who are California residents.  It is not for community college transfer students, out-of-state, or international students.

5. UC enrollment data shows that First-Time Freshmen are being denied seats so that the University of California can "sell" seats to out-of state and international students to increase revenues.  California State Auditor Report #2015-107: The University of California: Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students

6. Since 2009 total undergraduate enrollment has increased by 18,317 seats.

7. Since 2009, the University of California has intentionally supressed offers of admission to California resident students who are First-Time Freshmen, while increasing enrollment of community college transfer students and out-of-state and international students, in violation of the UC Master Plan for Higher Education and California Education Code 66202.5.

8. 73% of the 18,317 new seats went to community college transfer students and out-of-state and international students.

9.  Despite a 17% increase in applications from First-Time-Freshmen from CA Private High Schools, the University of California reduced offers of admission to CA Private School students by 22%. 

10. The data shows that the University of California engaged in race based admissions and discriminatory practices by intentionally denying offers of admission to White students and American Indian students from California Private High Schools while offers of admissions to students of all other ethnicities increased substantially.

11. The University of California is engaged in Invidious Discrimination.

Invidious Discrimination is treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. 

The class: First-Time Freshmen (California resident students who are in the top 12.5% (1/8th) of their high school graduating class). Especially those students that the UC considered to be "Privileged" (could afford to attend private school) and/or are White and/or American Indian.

Treated Unequally: These students were denied equality of educational opportunity in the admissions process. In fact California taxpayers have been defrauded as a result of the UC's intentional manipulation and use of the referral pool to UC Merced.

Only First-time Freshmen were denied a guaranteed admission to a campus of their choice, while community college transfer stduents, out-of-state and international stduents were guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at pages 33 - 36

Community college transfer stduents, out-of-state and international stduents were admitted with much lower test scores and GPA's. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at pages 28- 30.

Damages: As a result of the UC's unfair admissions policies, these students have suffered financial damages. At a minimum, these students were forced to attend out of state and/or private colleges and universities at a substantial increase in the cost of college tuition in order to be admitted to an "appropriate" school. Tuition at flagship schools equivalent to UCLA and UC Berkeley is $55,000 per year while instate tuition at a UC is $15,000 per year.

That is an unexpected, additional tuition expense of $40,000 per year ($160,000 over four years).

12. Since 2009, The University of California has intentionally denied approximately 10,700 California residents students per year an "appropriate" admission to the UC. 99.1% of the First-Time Freshmen who were not admitted to a campus of their choice and were placed in a referral pool and offered UC Merced as their only option, choose not to enroll at a UC. Instead they enroll at an out-of-state and/or private college or university. LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 39

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

This creates a huge financial drain on the State of California while the University of California unjustly enriches itself at the expense of California taxpayers.

10,700 X $160,000 (increased tuition) = $1.7 billion dollars per year since 2009 out of taxpayers pockets- and much of it out of the California economy.

Ten years: 107,000 California Resident students have been discriminated against.

$17 billion out of the California taxpayers pocket.

No wonder California is the hotbed of the Operation Varsity Blues college admissions scandal. 10,700 California First-Time-Freshmen are not being denied admission to California public colleges and universities.

13. Janet Napolitano, President of the UC system defended the changes in admissions policies stating the need for additional revenues and the need to increase diversity at UC campuses.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S NEED FOR INCREASED REVENUES

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS BROKEN ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PROMISE TO FUND AN APPROPRIATE SEAT IN THE UC SYSTEM FOR EVERY QUALIFIED CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

14. Public Education is the State of California's number one Constitutionally mandated spending priority. California Constitution Article 9 Sections 5, 6, and 14. 

15. California Education Code 66202.5 codifies the State of California's commitment to ensure that resources will be made available to accommodate all eligible students an appropriate place within the UC system.

16. The state of California is currently enjoying record high revenues of $222 billion dollars, an increase of $77 billion since 2007-08. California Budget: 2007-08 and 2019-20. 

$55 billion of the $66 billion is currently budgeted for the High Speed Rail project. 

California 5-year Infrastructure Plan 

17. The State has sufficient revenues to fund a seat for every first-time freshman who graduated in the top 12.5% (1/8th) of their high school graduating class. According to the University of California, the State has "chosen" not too provide adequate funding to the UC to guarantee admission to all qualified California resident students. Instead the State is "choosing" to spend taxpayer dollars on new programs and entitlements that are not Constitutionally mandated such as the High Speed Rail project and new programs and entitlements for people who are not legally entitled to be in this country.

18. The 2020-21 California State Budget allocated $18.1 billion in state funds for higher education.

$4.2 billion went to the University of California an increase of $0.4 billion since 2007-08.

19. "The university is subject to legislative oversight only in limited circumstances. California courts have stated that the broad powers the state constitution confers upon the university provide it general immunity from legislative regulation. However, the Legislature can specify provisions that the university must meet before it can spend state appropriations."  California State Audit Report 2016-30 page 8 

20. Current Governor Newsom sat on the Board of Regents from 2011 until he was elected Governor in 2018. The California Governor, the California Legislature and the Board of Regents have the same progressive agenda as Board President Janet Napolitano and as, such no desire to correct the unilateral changes in admission policies and/or financial decisions of the UC despite a scathing 2015 Audit.

21. The State of California is no longer upholding its Constitutionally mandated financial commitment to ensure that resources will be made available to accommodate all eligible students an appropriate place within the UC system.  

22. The State of California has broken it's promise to California resident students. As a result California taxpayers have been financially damaged. California resident students who were defrauded by the intentional manipulation of the referral pool to UC Merced and denied admission to an appropriate UC campus have been financially damaged and should be entitled to reparations from the State of California. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FAILED TO DISCLOSE TENS OF MILLIONS IN SURPLUS FUNDS 

Source: California State Auditor: Report 2016-130

23. From the April 25, 2017 Letter from State Auditor Elain M. Howle to the Governor of the State of California

• • The Office of the President has accumulated more than $175 million in undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves; as of fiscal year 2015–16, it had $83 million in its restricted reserve and $92 million in its discretionary reserve.
  • More than one-third of its discretionary reserve, or $32 million, came from unspent funds from the campus assessment—an annual charge that the Office of the President levies on campuses to fund the majority of its discretionary operations.
  • In certain years, the Office of the President requested and received approval from the Board of Regents (regents) to increase the campus assessment even though it had not spent all of the funds it received from campuses in prior years.
  • The Office of the President did not disclose the reserves it had accumulated, nor did it inform the regents of the annual undisclosed budget that it created to spend some of those funds. The undisclosed budget ranged from $77 million to $114 million during the four years we reviewed.
  • The Office of the President was unable to provide a complete listing of the systemwide initiatives, their costs, or an assessment of their continued benefit to the university.
  • While it appears that the Office of the President’s administrative spending increased by 28 percent, or $80 million, from fiscal years 2012–13 through 2015–16, the Office of the President continues to lack consistent definitions of and methods for tracking the university’s administrative expenses.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ADVOCACY 

24. Janet Napolitano, as President of the University of California used taxpayer dollars to engage in political advocacy of far left progressive ideals with the intent to use her office as President to punish California taxpayers by denying educational opportunity only to American citizens. 

25. While denying admissions to California residents (First-Time Freshmen) citing a lack of adequate funding, Janet Napolitano spent millions of California taxpayer dollars on the following Presidential Initiatives.

University of California Office of the President at page 41

Carbon Neutrality Initiative 

2. Global Food Initiative

Student Public Service Fellowships 

Public Service Law Fellowships 

UC- Mexico Initiative

UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement 

These two programs are on the UCOP web site as well, but not in the 2019-20 budget report.

Documentation from March 14, 2018 Office of the President To members of the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee:

Cuba Faculty Matching Funds 

Smoke and Tobacco Free Student Fellowships

JANET NAPOLITANO MADE MATERIAL MIS-REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT TO THE PUBLIC

26. "The university’s mission is to serve society as a center for higher learning through teaching, research, and public service; and the university states in its accountability reports that access and affordability for California undergraduate students is among its highest priorities". State Audit page 7 

27. According to Audit Report 2016-30 at page 14, 90% of Janet Napolitano's discretionary funding for Presidential Initiatives came directly from campus assessments which means that Janet Napolitano, while President of the UC made material mis-representations of fact to the Public and to the State Legislature regarding the UC's spending priorities. 

ABUSE OF POWER 

28. As President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano interfered with the State Auditor's audit and was rebuked by the State Legislature and Board of Regents for her actions.

2015 Audit Released The University of California Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students

4-25-2017 Audit Released: The University of California Office of the President: It Failed to Disclose Tens of Millions in Surplus Funds, and Its Budget Practices Are Misleading

05-02-2017 Hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee questioned Napolitano about $175 million in hidden funds while the University System was raising tuition

09-08-2017 The University of California sues Trump administration for wrongly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of the University and its students by rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”

The University of California interferred with the Audits

10-02-2017 AB 562 Muraysuchi Califoria State Auditor: Interference is signed into law which prohibits any person, with an intent to deceive or defraud, from obstructing the California State Auditor in the performance of his or her duties.

11-04-2017 Chair Kieffer releases a statement regarding Janet Napolitino 

11-20-2017 Statement by Muratsuchi Chairmen, Joint Audit Committee: UCOP's Interference with State Audit 'Disappointing"

Response by UC President Janet Napolitano to the Board of Regents on the finding of Interference In a State Audit

Independent Fact-Finding Review for Board of Regents of the University of California: Summary of Findings

Why wasn't she fired?

02-28-2018 Janet Napolitano, President UC's letter to Senator Mitchell re: Annual Report on Student Transfers 2015-17. 

The UC continued to deny admission to high school graduates but substantially increased and guaranteed admission to California community college transfer students. In a Settlement with UC Regents, the State agreed to take over funding of Janet Napolitano's Undocumented Students Initiative 

29. Janet Napolitano is a single appointed bureaucrat that has acted unilaterally to change admissions policies and spending priorities without compentent oversight from the California Board of Regents and the State Legislature. Despite several scathing State audits no one has fired or disciplined her. That is because all of the appointed bureaucrats sitting on the Board of Regents have the same political ideology. The Board lacks political diversity. 

30. Governor Newsom, as Lieutenant Governor sat on the Board of Regents from 2011 until he was elected Governor in 2018.  Since becoming governor, he has focused all of his energy on providing new programs and entitlements for illegal immigrants while ignoring the needs of rank and file citizens. Governor Newsom, as Governor continues to deny basic civil rigts to the legal citizens of the State of California.

The Message to California Taxpayers and California Resident Students:

We want your money- but we don't want you.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA INCREASED INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT CLAIMING IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCREASE DIVERSITY ON UC CAMPUSES

31. It was the intent of the California Legislature that diversity on UC campuses must reflect the diversity of the State of California. 

32. The diversity of students on UC campuses no longer reflects the diversity of the State of California. Almost 1/2 of the student population on every campus is now Asian. According to the latest census data, Asian's make up 15% of California's population. 

33. Chicano/Latino make up 39.3% of California's population and are under represented on all campuses except UC Merced which is 52.7% Chicano/Latino. 

34. Whites; now an ethnic minority in the State of California, make up 36.8% of California's population. White students are underrepresented on every UC Campus.

Source: Fall Enrollment at a Glance: Ethnicity

35. International Enrollment at the University of California is up 780% since 2009.

36. The 2018 (latest data) showed that non-resident international enrollment totaled 40,122 students:

88% of International students are from Asia and the Middle East.

12% are from the rest of the world

Of the 88% of International students from Asia and the Middle East, 61% are from a single country- The People's Republic of China. 

This is not "Diversity" this is a national security risk.

CRIMINAL FRAUD

37. By design; every year, the University of California denies approximately 10,700 California resident students (first-time freshman) in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission to a campus of their choice. These students are then placed in a referral pool and offerd UC Merced as their only option. UC Merced is not an "appropriate" placement for any student in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. According to the Legislative Analysit Office, 99.1% of the California resident students (first-time freshman) offered UC Merced as their only option declined to enroll. LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 39

38. UC Merced is a "FALSE CHOICE" for California residents students (first-time freshman) in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. The UC's manipulation of the referral pool for California Residents is a fraud upon the public. 

39. The University of California has broken its promise to California taxpayers and California resident students (first-time freshmen) in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at page 35 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN UNJUSTLY ENRICHED

40. The University of California's failure to fully comply with its Master Plan Mandate (providing California students with "appropriate" placement) unjustly enriched the University of California at the expense of California taxpayers. California's top 12.5% of high school graduates who were denied access to an "appropriate" UC were denied educational opportunity so that the UC could profit at their expense.

41. California families who's children were wrongly denied a seat at an "appropriate" UC have paid substantial taxes to support the University of California and it's very highly paid staff and were suppose to receive PRIORITY ENROLLMENT. These same families have been defrauded and were then forced to pay an additional $40,000 per year in tuition at another 4-year highly selective college or university.

This is a violation of State Law, and the University of California's Master Plan Mandate.

University of California Master Plan

Access Guarantee

"The University of California and the California State University are expected to plan that adequate spaces are available to accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an appropriate place [not UC Merced] within the system"

42. When the University of California denies a seat to a California resident student and sells that seat to an out-of-state and/or international student, the UC keeps the taxpayer money that subsidized the cost of that seat for a California resident student $29,754. Then the UC sells that seat for an additional $44,000. That is $73,754 benefit to the UC per seat and serves no benefit to the displaced California resident student who must not only pay the $160,000 in additional tuition over four years, but the State subsidized portion because they are no longer in-state students at a California public university. Their total tuition cost at an out-of-state or private university is closer to $55,000 per year rather than the $15,000 they would have paid in state at a UC.

Unjust Enrichment for the University of California:

10,700 seats X $73,754 = $789 million in additional revenues for the UC

Damage to California Resident:

10,700 students X $55,000 X 4 years = $2.4 billion per year

Source: University of California Office of the President Budget Analysis and Planning

43. The University of California unjustly enriched itself at the expense of 10,700 California resident students who are now forced to pay out-of-state and/ or private school tuition at an average cost of $55,000 per year, $40,000 more than a seat at the UC would have cost them.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS UNJUSTLY ENRICHED ITSELF BY INTENTIONALLY UNDERFUNDING LOW POVERTY K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS

44. The State of California has been able to increase state revenues by $66 billion dollars since 2007-08 by intentionally underfunding low poverty K-12 public school districts through the State's unconstitutional funding formual. 

45. The funding formula limits K-12 per pupil funding to 2007-08 levels + inflation not to be reached until 2021. 

46. California's new education funding law: AB- 97 School Finance - Local Control Funding Formula aka "LCFF" distributes K- 12 per pupil funding using the following formula.

The "Base Grant" is universal for all students. 

The "Supplemental Grant" provides additional funding to districts based on the percentage of students in the district that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care. 

The "Concentration Grant" provides even more funding for districts that have large concentrations of students that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.

Districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care, are funded primarily by the Base Grant. 

The State set the base funding grant at $6,500. That is $2,500 per pupil below the cost to educate any student in California based on a study commissioned in 2006. 

47.  In December 2006, the State of California Commissioned a study to determine the cost to "adequately" educate a student in California with special needs weightings. The 2007-08 Calculated per pupil costs with special needs weightings determined that no child in the state of California could be educated for less than $8,932 per pupil. The study determined that suburban school districts should receive $10,726 - $12,077 per pupil to be adequately funded.

Source: Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach

https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/19-AIR-PJP-Report(3-07).pdf at page Xiii

48. By setting the base grant so low, the State by design, intentionally underfunded any District that had a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.  This enabled the State to siphon $2,500 per pupil from every child in its 34 wealthiest school districts. 

49. Basing per pupil funding on the wealth, race, and ethnicity of a district is a violation of the equal protection laws of the State of California and the US Constitution.

50. Denying any student sufficient funding to achieve a equality of educational opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity constitutes invidious discrimination. 

51. The State is using California's public education system to continually raise new revenues. But, rather than use new revenues to adequately fund a basic education for every student, the State chose instead, to create new programs and entitlements that are not constitutionally mandated while denying California's legal residents their basic civil rights. 

52. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973) the US Supreme Court defined when it would be appropriate for a Federal Court to review an individual State's education funding system to determine the constitutionality of that system. The Court also defined how an individual State's education funding system should be reviewed to determine the Constitutionality of that system.

A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s education funding laws under standards of strict judicial scrutiny, in cases involving laws that operate to the disadvantage of a suspect class or interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution. Ibid. [18-44]

If a State's system of financing public education:

1. Operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class, or

2. Impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution,

that system must be reviewed under standards of strict judicial scrutiny. 

If a suspect classification is not found, the system must still be examined to:

"... determine whether the law rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose, and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. " Ibid. [17]

Matters of Fiscal Policy: 

Ibid. [40].  "[San Antonio v Rodriguez] represents far more than a challenge to the manner in which Texas provides for the education of its children. We have here nothing less than a direct attack on the way in which Texas has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues." (Emphasis Added) "The broad discretion as to classification possessed by a legislature in the field of taxation has long been recognized. . . . [T]he passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies. . . . "

Ibid. [41]   "It has . . . been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification. Since the members of a legislature necessarily enjoy a familiarity with local conditions which this Court cannot have, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes. . . ."  Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 87-88 (1940). See also Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 (1973); Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 445 (1940). (emphasis added). 

California's education funding law AB- 97 School Finance - Local Control Funding Formula Operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class and therefore, must be reviewed under standards of strict judicial scrutiny.

 Even if a suspect classification is not found, the system must still be examined to:  

"... determine whether the law rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose, and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. " San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973) at [17]

The stated goal of the Local Control Funding Formula is to provide a base level of funding for every student (Base Grant), and then to provide additional funding for students who "high needs", identified as students who are "English Language Learners", "Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch", or are in "Foster Care" (Supplemental Grant and Concentration Grant).

The LCFF does not provide high needs students in districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch and/or are in Foster Care with sufficient funding to meet their needs and therefore does not meet the State's articulated purpose for the law. Every student, including English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced lunch and/or Foster kids are being deprived of there fundamental Right to Equality of Educational Opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity. That constitutes invidious discrimination and is a violation of the Equal Protection laws of both the State of California and the Federal Constitution. 

To meet it's constitutional mandate to students the State of California must increase the Base Funding amount to a level that provides every student with sufficient funding to achieve equality of educational opportunity, which as a matter of law is not less than $8,932 + infantion since 2007-08. 

CALIFORNIA STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES DESERVE RECOMPENSE

53. Both the State of California and the University of California have been unjustly enriched by allowing the unfair practices to continue. These families have been fiscally injured, and these students have been denied the "appropriate" educational opportunity that was guaranteed to them by both the State of California and the University of California. 

54. California families that have been financially damaged should be given a financial remedy as recommended by the Auditor.

"The university’s decision to increase nonresident enrollment at the expense of residents will have a long-lasting impact unless the Legislature and the university take steps to restore the university’s historic commitment to residents. These steps must not only ensure that the university prioritizes residents’ interests in the future but also repairs the damage that its past decisions have caused. In November 2015—during the course of our audit— the university committed to enrolling an additional 10,000 more residents over the next three fiscal years. However, the enrollment of 10,000 additional residents will not fully rectify the ramifications of its decision to admit nonresidents while referring or denying admission to more qualified resident applicants." 

55. As a result of the abusive, unconscionable and malicious conduct of the University of California, the Board of Regents and California legislators, taxpayers deserve a criminal investigation into the admission practices and financial decisions made by both the University of California and the State of California.

56.  The State of California has failed to meet its Constitutional obligation to provide an "appropriate" seat for ALL top 12.5% of California High School Graduates. In 2015, the Auditor made recommendations that the Legislature and the Board of Regents had an obligation to take seriously and to implement. Both the California Legislature and the UC Board of Regents failed to implement the Auditors recommendations for UC Admissions and have now allowed 10,700

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

57. Further, this denies equality of educational opportunity to qualified California students which is a violation of their individual civil rights. It now seems obvious that referring these students to UC Merced was not an "appropriate" placement for 99.1% of the referrals.

California LAO The 2019-20 Budget: Higher Education Analysis page 43

"Many Students Not Getting Into Campus of Choice. Although UC is admitting all eligible freshman applicants, some of these applications are redirected to Merced. In fall 2017, 10,700 eligible freshman applicants (14 percent) were referred to Merced. Very few of these students (119 or 1.1 percent) elected to enroll at that campus. Students who do not accept admission at UC may end up attending CSU, a private school, or a community college (then transferring to a four-year school, including UC, upon completing their lower-division coursework). Supporting more enrollment growth could enable UC to accommodate more applicants at their campus of choice. The Legislature could weigh this benefit against its other budget priorities." 

The California LAO misunderstands that the "Referral Pool" is not made up of students who need to complete their lower-division coursework, these are students who are California's top 9%... the best and brightest who deserve a seat at the UC of their Choice, not to be referred to UC Merced. That is why 98.9% of the students rejected the offer to attend UC Merced. Many are qualified to attend flagship schools like UCLA and Berkeley so they of course attend similar schools (ie USC) outside the University system.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

58. Under a new Community College TAG program (Transfer Access Guarantee), the University of California guarantees admission to community college transfer students at reduced costs (subsidized tuition and living expenses). These Transfer students are admitted by completing 7 courses at Community College earning a 2.4 GPA (2.8 GPA for nonresident students). While there should be a path for Community College students to transfer to the UC, the California Master Plan Mandate never intended to guarantee community college transfer students a place within the UC system if it would displace a recent high school graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class

59. California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are to be guaranteed a seat by the State of California and the University of California based solely on merit, as a matter of law. After they are placed, the University of California may admit students for all remaining seats under a holistic review which would allow students with lower test scores and GPA's to be considered.

60. The University of California's new TAG program is Affirmative Action.

61. Affirmative Action is illegal in the state of California.

62. Under the recent Supreme Court Case Fisher v University of Texas at Austin the UC system must first, provide an appropriate seat for all California resident students in the top 12.5% of the state based solely on merit in order to comply with State law and the University's Master Plan mandate.  The university is then allowed to use a "holistic review" of students for admission for all remaining seats. 

"A holistic review in admissions considers income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement. Factors in selection for scholarships or employment may include applicants’ ability to contribute to a diverse educational or working environment, and/or their potential for leadership in increasing equitable access to higher education." 

Public educational institutions cannot engage in affirmative action [California Prop 2019].

University of California: Guidelines for Enhancing Diversity at UC in Context of Proposition 209, page 3

COLLEGE BOARD'S DIVERSITY COLLABORATIVE

63. College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative"Holistic Review" and "Race- Conscious Admissions and Enrollment" 

College Board's Access & Diversity Collaborative was formed in response to the Supreme Court Case Fisher v University of Texas at Austin which ruled that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in the "holistic review" portion of admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Did the ruling open a door to reviving afirmative action in college admissions?

The Decision was very narrow and specific to the University of Texas's at Austins admissions policy. Race can only be used in admissions decisions in the holistic review of a students Personal Achievement Index. The decision does not allow public educational  instutions to engage in raced based affirmative action.

The University of Texas had an undergraduate admissions policy made of two components:

Part One: As required by Texas law, any student who graduates from a Texas high school in the top 10% of their class is guaranteed admission to the University of Texas.

Part Two: The remainder of the incoming freshman class (25%) is filled by combining an applicant's "Academic Index" (the students SAT/ACT score and high school academic performance) with a holistic review a student's background.

"A holistic review in admissions considers income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement. Factors in selection for scholarships or employment may include applicants’ ability to contribute to a diverse educational or working environment, and/or their potential for leadership in increasing equitable access to higher education." 

University of Califonria: Guideines for Enhancing Diversity at UC in Context of Proposition 209, page 3

While the Fisher case ruled that it is legal to use race as a factor in the holistic review of a students background, public educational institutions cannot engage in affirmative action. 

In fact, many states have laws in place that eliminate a pubic educational institutuion's ability to grant preferences to any student based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. 

Proposition 209, California Affirmative Action (1996) prohibits public institutions in California from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity. 

"The Access & Diversity Collaborative is a major College Board Advocacy & Policy Center initiative that was established in the immediate wake of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court University of Michigan decisions to address the key questions of law, policy, and practice posed by higher education leaders and enrollment officials. The Collaborative provides general policy, practice, legal, and strategic guidance to colleges, universities, and state systems of higher education to support their independent development and implementation of access- and diversity-related enrollment policies — principally through in-person seminars and workshops, published manuals and white papers/policy briefs, and professional development videos."

August 2016 Implications from Fisher II: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Guidance for Institutions of Higher Education Regarding Race-Conscious Enrollment Practices

EducationCouncil LLC

EducationCounsel LLC (an affiliate of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) is the College Board’s principal partner in providing strategic counsel and substantive content regarding the relevant legal, policy, and practice issues central to the ADC’s mission. EducationCounsel is a mission-based education consulting firm that combines experience in policy, strategy, law, and advocacy to drive significant improvements in the U.S. education system from pre-K through college and career. EducationCounsel’s work in higher education focuses on issues ranging from access and opportunity to those associated with quality and completion. For more information, please visit http://educationcounsel.com/.

64. The University of California, Office of the President should be rebuked for thier use of taxpayer dollars to implement a pilot to add "adversity scores" to SAT testing.

65. The University of California, Office of the President should be rebuked for thier mis-use of California students personally identifiable data to implement a pilot to add "adversity scores" to SAT testing. 

Undergraduate New Student Applicants 

Applicants – Students who make a formal application to attend the University of California.

 Change in the number of Applicants

% Change in the number of Applicants

29,551

Error 29371

Undergraduate New Student Admits

Admits – Students who have been made a formal offer of admission to attend the University of California.

 Change in the number of Students

% Change in the number of students

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Enrollees

Enrollees – Students who have accepted an offer of admission and are enrolled at the University of California.

 Change in the number of Students

% Change in the number of students

Increase 3,056

Up 70%

Increase 585 

Up 21%

Increase 561

Up 46%

Increase 2,313

Up 404%

Increase 908

Up 796%

Increase 97

Up 262%

Increase 2,689

Up 75%

Increase 604 

Up 26%

Increase 531

Up 50%

Increase 267

Up 39%

Increase 56

Up 11%

Increase 17

Up 11%

 Increase 2,303

+ 362%

 Increase 891

+ 46%

Increase 96

+ 213%

Increase 76

Up 13%

Decrease 115 

Up 21%

Decrease 13

Down 6%

Increase168

Up 212%

Increase 104

Up 385%

Increase 97

Up 262%

Increase 78

Up 17%

Decrease 76

Down 19%

Decrease 3

Down 2%

Increase 2

Increase 2%

Decrease 35

Down 71%

Decrease 11

Down 35%

 Increase 160

+ 177%

 Increase 99

+ 291%

Increase 22

+ 314%

168

Increase 25,362

Up 131%

Increase 8,264

Up 55%

Increase 4,870

Up 74%

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

Increase 24,174

Up 143%

Increase 8,541 

Up 65%

Increase 4,719

Up 78%

Increase 1,056

Up 46%

Decrease 303

Down 11%

Decrease 117

Down 22%

 Increase 2,863

+ 305%

 Increase 1,346

+ 375%

Increase 168

+ 258%

Increase 10,680

Up 41%

Increase 2,231

Up 55%

Increase 1,513

Up 11%

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

Increase 646

Up 3%

Increase 2,517 

Up 12%

Increase 1,582

Up 13%

Increase 694

Down 25%

Decrease 270

Down 11%

Decrease 100

Down 9%

 Increase 7,336

+ 232%

 Increase 4,299

+ 265%

Increase 1,019

+ 281%

Increase 119

<1%

Decrease 8,111

Down 34%

Decrease 2,237

Down 77%

Increase 7,800

142%

Increase 4,741

194%

Increase 981

Up 192%

Increase 984

Up 5%

Increase 3,238 

Up 18%

Decrease 1,664

Down 21%

Decrease 826

Down 15%

Decrease 2,382

Down 48%

Decrease 507

Down 35%

 Increase 7,298

+ 125%

 Increase 4,295

+ 158%

Increase 834

+ 132%

Increase 3,056

70%

Decrease 1,209

Down 34%

Decrease 407

Down 26%

Increase 810

111%

Increase 496

130%

Increase 113

Up 179%

Decrease 8

Down <1%

Increase 701

Down 27%

Decrease 280

Down 22%

Decrease 310

Down 34%

Decrease 452

Down 54%

Decrease 507

Down 35%

 Increase 697

+ 94%

 Decrease 331

-80%

Decrease 82

+ 98%

Increase 1,079

Up 95%

Increase 661 

Up 93%

Increase 500

Up 107%

Increase 62 

Up 105%

Increase 14

Up 64% 

Increase 6

Up 200% 

Increase 1073

Up 188%

Increase 670

 108%

Increase  500

<1%

Increase 64

Up 23% 

Decrease 1

Down <1%

Increase 5

 9%

Increase 1,079

Up 95%

Increase 661 

Up 93%

Increase 500

Up 107%

 Increase 4

Up 40%

No Change 

Increase 1

200% 

Increase 20

Up 10% 

Increase 1

Up <1% 

Decrease 2

 2%

Decrease 11

Down 22% 

Decrease 4

Down 25% 

Increase 5

Up 9% 

Increase 6,028

Up 128%

Increase 3,946

Up 109%

Increase 2,916

+120%

 Increase 109

Up 125%

Increase 22

Up 85% 

Increase 4

Up 57% 

 Increase 5,818

Up 140%

Increase 3,977

Up 118% 

Increase 2,954

Up 130% 

 Increase 318

Up 49%

Decrease 9

-3% 

Decrease 34

- 20% 

Increase 2,362

Up 33% 

Increase 1,281

Up 23% 

Increase 1,260

Up 32% 

 Increase 132

Up 96%

Increase 40

Up 82%

Increase 22 

Up 147%

Increase 2,266

Up 37% 

Increase 1,317

Up 26% 

Increase 1,245

Up 33% 

Increase 224

Up 19% 

Decrease 2

Down <1% 

Increase 34

Up 11% 

Increased by 542

Up 5%

Decreased by 101

Down <1%>

Increased by 175

Up 3%

 Increased 58

Up 12%

Increased 7

Up 5% 

Decreased 2

Down 4% 

Increased by 1,138

Up 13% 

Increased by 335

Up 6% 

Increased by 485

Up 10% 

 Decreased by 542

Down  25%

Decreased by 432

Down 44% 

Decreased by 310

Down 52% 

Declined by 1,291

Down 55%

Declined by 966

Down 57%

Declined by 632

Down 55%

Declined by 43 

Down 48%

Declined by 15

Down 52% 

Declined by 11

Down 69% 

Declined by 921

Down 50%

Declined by 802

Down 55%

Declined by 536

Down 52%

Declined by 365 

Down 68%

Declined by 176

Down 74% 

Declined by 105

Down 77% 

 All Ethnicities

*International data is not broken out by ethnicity on the University of California Data by Source School

Increase of 79

Up 392%

Increase of 24

Up 71%  

Increase of 14

Up 61%  

 Increase by 1,726

Up 79%

Increase by 1,482

Up 85% 

Increase by 1,375

 Up 117%

Incresed by 947

Up 163% 

Increased by 388

Up 200% 

Increased by 259

Up 264% 

Increased by 79

Up 26% 

Increased by 23

Up 9% 

Increased by 14

Up 61% 

International nonresident: 

*International data is not broken out by ethnicity on the University of California Data by Source School

Increase of 19,763

392%

Increase of 14,190

700%  

Increase of 4,420

780%    

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

3 YEARS AFTER AUDIT

AUDIT Released

AUDIT YEARS  (2010-2014)

2018

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2017

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2016

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2015

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2014

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2013

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

37,393

80%

 36,991 

80%

 38,938

82%

 30,127

79.5%

 34,202

82.3%

 33,229

83.1%

3,591

7.69%

3,512

7.6%

3,746

7.9%

3,098

7.5% 

3,185

7.7%

3,136

7.8%

33,802

72.4%

33,479

72.8%

35,192

74.1%)

29,729

71.5% 

31,017

74.6% 

30,093 

75.3% 

9,284

20%

 9,016

19.5%

 8,541

18%

 8,489 

20.5%

 7,366

17.8%

 6,755

16.9%

4,298

9.2%

 4,060 

8.7%

3,569

7.5%

3,729

9% 

3,348

8.1% 

3,133

7.8% 

4,986

10.7%

 4.956

10.8%

 4,972

10.5%

4,760

11.5% 

4,018

9.7% 

3,622

9.1% 

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

AUDIT YEARS

2012

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

33,195

85.7%

32,223

88.7% 

29,930   

92.3%  

 32,391

94.6%

34,396

94.1% 

33,497

95% 

3,319

28,904

5,536

14.3%

4120 

11.3%

2,492 

7.7% 

1,841 

5.4% 

2,142   

5.9% 

1,754

5%

2,575

6.6%

 2,328

6.4%

1,574

4.9%

1,285

3.8%

1,501

4.1%

1,376

3.9%

2,961

7.6%

1,792

4.9%

918

2.8%

556

1.6%

641

1.8%

378

1.1%

 33,523

94.9%

30,048

95.5% 

 28,095

95%

30,239

95% 

1,805

5.1%

1,416

4.5%

1,450

5%

1,627

5%

1,730

5.5%

1,874 

6.1%

1,447

4.1%

1,176

3.7%

1,193

4.1%

1,353

4.2%

1,438

4.5%

1,578

5.1% 

358

1.01%

 240

0.8%

 257

0.9%

274

0.8%

292

1%

296 

1%

Admitted International students GPAs' and Test Scores are much lower than CA Resident Students

Source:

University of California Admission by Source School FR GPA by Year