The Brief

A bill that would give California colleges and universities an option to provide preference in admissions to descendants of slavery has cleared the state’s Senate Education Committee with a 5-2 vote after being passed in the Assembly with overwhelming support. But as the bill moves to the Judiciary Committee, even its proponents say they are pessimistic that it will become law at a time of increasing scrutiny over measures suggesting racial preferences.

Assembly Bill 7, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, is the first statewide measure of its kind to address the harms of slavery, said UCLA education professor Tyrone Howard, and it has been backed by nearly two dozen organizations, including the California Federation of Teachers and the University of California Student Association.

“Disparities in admissions persist and reflect deeply rooted structural inequalities, including the afterlives of slavery. In addition, California had a long history of legacy admissions, up until last year, that favored students who came from wealthy and well-connected family situations,” Bryan said at Wednesday’s hearing. “[AB 7] empowers universities with the option, not a mandate, to acknowledge and respond to this historical context when evaluating applicants.”

Lance Christensen, the vice president of Government Affairs & Education Policy at the California Policy Center, said he doesn’t see the need for such a measure in California — and felt the bill “looks to be an underhanded approach at racial preferences.”

“I think we’re getting close to the place where we should stop race-baiting a lot of our bills. If California truly is a terrible or bad actor in the issue of slavery, we should do everything we can to fix and address those issues,” Christensen said. “And there are places where we were really not good to a lot of Black people, Asians, Native Americans and other disparate people. This is not one of those places where I think that we should focus our time and attention.”

Organizations such as the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation also previously expressed concerns about AB 7 leading “to de facto racial preferences without facilitating any meaningful changes to ameliorate structural problems at the K-12 level, including declines in academic performance and the persistent achievement gaps among different demographic groups.”

Neither state nor federal law allows a student’s race to be a factor in admissions, and affirmative action continues to be barred in California under Proposition 209, which 57.2% of voters opted to keep in place in 2020.

But supporters of the bill said at Wednesday’s hearing that descendants are not a “proxy for race” and “could look like anybody in this room,” noting that Indigenous people also have histories of being enslaved. Meanwhile, not all Black Americans have ancestors who were slaves.

The bill did not receive any formal opposition at Wednesday’s hearing.

“We have seen reparations for different communities, and we’ve seen the benefits,” said Senate Education Committee Chair Sasha Renée Pérez, noting reparations measures following Japanese internment during World War II. “Unfortunately, we have not seen the same type of investments placed towards those that are descendants of slavery and Black Americans across the country.”

Proving lineage 

AB 7 is unique because it specifically pertains to students who are descendants of slavery, Howard said. But, even if the bill passes, qualifying for any preference in admissions could be difficult, and Christensen added that ancestral records are often “incomplete or scattered at best,” which could lead to logistical issues.

“Admissions reviewers have a lot to already digest when they’re going through the process of admissions as it is — when you think about transcripts and grades and coursework and extracurricular activities,” Howard said. “And so now, to add to that, you’ve got to prove lineage. That might prove to be a bit challenging.”

Any preference in admissions would apply to students who can show a clear lineage to someone who was subjected to American chattel slavery before 1900, according to the bill analysis.

In order to receive preference, students will also have to meet at least one other criteria, which includes having an ancestor who was emancipated, acquiring freedom through abolition measures, being a fugitive from bondage, considered contraband or “rendered military or civic service while subject to legal restrictions based on ancestry historically associated with slavery.”

When it comes to affirmative action, there “is this misnomer that somehow a large number of unqualified and unprepared … Black students are getting these opportunities solely because of the fact of their race or ethnicity,” Howard added. “This would be one variable that would attempt to at least give some consideration.”

Potential challenges

Despite its support at Wednesday’s committee hearing, many experts are wary that the bill will not become law in the first place.

“As progressive as we are, I don’t know that we have the appetite as a state to go so far as to say, ‘Yes, we acknowledge that there are descendants in this state who are harmed by the legacy of slavery — and therefore we’re going to try to take redress by turning when it comes to college admissions,’” Howard said.

Howard pointed out that even if AB 7 is successful, the language in the bill requires that colleges and universities ensure any changes in the admissions process are in compliance with federal laws.

Given the current political climate, “Federal guidelines are not going to allow something that gives anything that resembles an advantage or an opportunity to one group of others to fly,” Howard said. “I just think that all the attacks we’ve seen on DEI, anything that’s seen in that way, I think would be dead on arrival.”

Shaun Harper, a USC professor of education, public policy and business, said he supports the measure and other efforts to secure reparations.

But, if passed, he anticipates it would face serious legal challenges, including from those who believe it violates Prop. 209 or contradicts the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action.

“At best … it does some acknowledgment of the wrongs that have been done to enslaved Africans here in the United States,” Harper said. “Ultimately, if it doesn’t happen, or it stalls, once again, Black folks have been set up to expect some amends for the wrongdoing, and we’re going to be left once again disappointed.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.