The Brief

Scrutiny of college admission secured through the privilege of money, family ties, and fraud hit a fever pitch after the 2019 Varsity Blues Scandal. But after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action policies nationwide in June, supporters of affirmative action once again question why colleges and universities continue to use family and donor ties in admissions.

Institutions both public and private are getting rid of legacy admissions. Colorado banned the practice for its public colleges in 2021.

After the Varsity Blues scandal, California lawmakers approved a bill that required all universities receiving state funding to submit annual reports on whether they practice legacy admissions. The state’s public universities do not consider legacy in admissions, but many of the private ones do.

Information for those reports is collected by the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), although schools can submit reports themselves, as Stanford University and the University of Southern California do.

LAist obtained copies of those reports from San Francisco Assemblymember Phil Ting’s office. Ting authored the state legislation mandating the disclosures.

Where legacy status matters

In Southern California, even as many private colleges still consider legacy status, they say the practice doesn’t give relevant applicants a major advantage.

Here’s an example from USC, California's largest accredited university:

USC disclosed in that report that it admitted 1,740 applicants this past school year with ties to donors and alumni; USC admitted 8,304 students total in Fall 2022. (That number doesn't account for transfer students and spring admits; LAist asked for those numbers, but USC said that legacy status for that data wasn't available.) The university added that “only a very small percentage had relationships with non-alumni donors.”

Other institutions that take into account family and donor ties also say their admitted legacy students met the bar for admission.

“While the university tracks familial history with Pepperdine, the Office of Admission maintains the same requirements, standards, and qualifications for all applicants, including those without legacy history,” said Pepperdine University spokesman Michael Friel in an email.

“During the 2022 and 2023 admission cycles, legacy applicants were admitted at a lower rate than the admit rate of our general applicant pool,” he said.

Pepperdine disclosed to Sacramento that it admitted 86 applicants with “some manner of preferential treatment to applicants on the basis of their relationship to donors of [sic] alumni,” as the report category states in Fall 2022.

A representative for AICCU underlined to LAist that the manner in which preferential treatment through family and donor ties works on each campus is determined by that campus.

The state requirement does not compel Pepperdine or any other private college or university to detail how important or unimportant family and donor ties were for each of those admitted students.

California requires some legacy admission transparency

The June 2023 report lists 65 institutions — including Loyola Marymount University, Cal Lutheran, and Chapman University — that stated they did not provide any manner of preferential treatment to applicants based on donor or alumni relationships for the Fall 2022 class.

As the pool of applicants from underrepresented communities such as Black and Latino students grows and college enrollment drops, legacy admissions policies may tarnish private colleges’ image and efforts to attract these students, faculty say.

“[Focus on legacy admissions] will rub some of the shine away from those colleges and universities that we’ve been putting on a pedestal,” said Mitchell Chang, professor of education at UCLA and the interim provost of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Even though schools like USC are receiving a record number of applications, private colleges and universities should be concerned, Chang said, because underrepresented students have more options these days. Think of the heavy recruiting historically Black colleges and universities do among Black communities in Southern California.

“We ask every applicant if they have any family members that have attended the college,” said Maricela Martinez, vice president of enrollment at Occidental College, one of L.A.’s oldest higher education institutions.

“This year moving forward we will no longer ask that question,” she said.

Oxy, as the college is known, hasn’t used information about family ties for admissions “in recent history,” she said.

The college hopes that by putting the practice into a formal policy, she said, future applicants will know that the college is trying to create a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse student body.

None of the private higher education institutions that replied to LAist’s request for comment — USC, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine University, Cal Lutheran, Pomona College, Chapman University, Biola University, and Whittier College — said that they’d get rid of the family ties question as Oxy has.

Whittier College said it gives applicants with alumni ties a $1,000 scholarship.

A drastic action by these institutions to do away with legacy admissions or consideration of donor or family ties may not level the playing field for underrepresented applicants, as activists seek to do.

“The applicants from wealthy families have access to way more educational opportunities,” Chang said. “Let’s say internships, a stronger record of volunteering, and doing community service,” which continues to be an advantage in college applications.

State and local lawmakers are joining immigrant rights groups in urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a bill that would bar California law enforcement from moonlighting for ICE.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who represents Angelenos from South L.A. to Mar Vista, introduced AB 1537 in January. If implemented, the bill would ban California police, sheriffs and other law enforcement from taking on second jobs that involve “arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting” people.

The bill has made its way through the state legislature and is now on the governor’s desk. Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it.

At a press conference outside L.A. City Hall on Wednesday, José Madera, who directs the Pasadena Job Center, pointed to multiple deaths involving federal immigration agents in recent months — from Minneapolis to Houston — and to a recent shooting in Austin. “We don't need our local police to be part of that violence,” he said.

“ICE is a lawless, rogue agency that is terrorizing our communities, separating our families and kidnapping our neighbors,” said Bruno Huizar, supervising policy manager at the California Immigrant Policy Center. “Governor Newsom must sign AB 1537 into law to protect Californians.”

L.A. City councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, whose own parents were undocumented, said it pained him to see immigrant parents go to work and to church in fear of being separated from their children.

“If you’re a public servant, you should be serving the public — not helping ICE tear families apart,” he added in a follow-up email statement.

The bill, dubbed “No side jobs for ICE” by its proponents, would also require officers to report secondary employment offers relating to immigration to their employers.

“If a law enforcement agent gets a conditional offer from an immigration enforcement agency, that will be part of their employment records. And that will be subject to a public records act request,” said Shiu-Ming Cheer, a licensed attorney at the California Immigration Policy Center. “This is aimed at bringing transparency, so that we know how many officers are actually getting offers to work as an ICE agent or a Border Patrol agent.”

The Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represents officers across the state, has spoken out against the bill, arguing that “policies like this don’t improve public safety.” The Los Angeles Police Protective League did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

The bill is part of a growing effort to bar local law enforcement from engaging in the ongoing mass deportation effort. The L.A. City Council approved a motion in March, barring city employees from holding second jobs with federal immigration enforcement agencies.

In Santa Ana, the City Council recently adopted a policy that prohibits employees from obtaining outside work that involves federal immigration enforcement activities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill aimed at protecting children who are abused.

The law, which went into effect this week, is named “Gabriel’s Law,” after Gabriel Fernandez — an 8-year-old boy in Palmdale who died in 2013 after being tortured and abused by his mother and her boyfriend.

“It devastated the community. Still has,” said State Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), who worked on legislation related to Gabriel’s case for years. “It hasn't gone away, right? It’s something we still acknowledge.”

Since Fernandez’s death, the Antelope Valley has seen a number of high-profile child deaths at the hands of their parents.

The new law requires social workers to make sure a child gets emergency medical care when needed, and it makes it easier to prosecute social workers who knowingly falsify records.

Officials said there had been warning signs about Fernandez’s abuse, but social workers with the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services failed to follow up on them. The high-profile case prompted internal reforms in the agency.

What happened to Gabriel

Gabriel died in May 2013, after months of abuse from his mother and her boyfriend. He was found with a number of injuries, including a fractured skull, broken ribs and BB pellets lodged in his body. His mother and her boyfriend were both sentenced.

A teacher had reported signs of abuse to the county, but social workers did not remove him from the home. Then they ended the investigation. Prosecutors charged the social workers with child abuse, but the charges were later dismissed.

“He was literally tortured. And there were many, many, many documented events, and there are many encounters that he had with people that lacked follow-up,” Lackey said.

What does the law change?

Before this week, the law said that social workers may authorize care if a child needs immediate emergency care, but did not require it. Gabriel’s law requires a social worker to secure medical care for a child.

“ They call for an ambulance or escort the child to an emergency room— make sure a physician has the opportunity to provide some level of remedy and documentation of the injury,” Lackey said.

It also clarifies the law so that social workers who are guilty of falsifying or destroying public records can be imprisoned or fined.

Why did the law take so long to change?

Lackey’s previous legislative efforts related to Fernandez’s case failed over the years. He introduced at least five different pieces of legislation that failed to advance.

“I'm not even saying that I blame the pushback and the concern, because if you're too aggressive, there's a tendency to accuse people of wrongdoing when they are not guilty of wrongdoing, so we wanted to make sure that the balance was reasonable,” he said.

Lackey terms out this year. “We're trying to do something as a community to not only pay tribute to [Gabriel], but to prevent it from reoccurring,” he said.

The Los Angeles Fire Department has completed its investigation into the cause of the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights but was unable to determine what caused it. 

In a press release, LAFD said the June 17 fire was caused by an “electrical event” that occurred on the roof of the building, “adjacent to a section of solar panels.” Despite a “comprehensive investigation,” the department could not determine what caused the electrical event.

“The Department’s thoughts remain with all those impacted by this deeply tragic incident,” Arson and Fire Investigation Chief Thomas Raymond said in a release.

In response to the inconclusive investigation, District 14 Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said, “LAFD’s finding that the cause remains undetermined does nothing to alleviate what Boyle Heights residents have endured and are still carrying: months of health concerns and disruption, along with unanswered questions about whether this site can safely operate again.”

“The fact that we still cannot explain how this catastrophe began is yet another reason I will continue opposing any permits to rebuild this facility,” Jurado said.

Recently, the LA City Council voted to withhold rebuilding permits for the Lineage warehouse until after the Los Angeles Fire Department completed its investigation. Earlier this month, Lineage Chief Executive Officer Greg Lehmkuhl told Boyle Heights Beat and The LA Local that the company had not decided whether to rebuild, saying, “We’re still focused on holding the right people accountable here and making sure that we’re continuing to support the community.”

The CEO’s comments came after Lineage sued solar power provider Altus Power, Inc. and its contractor, blaming them for the fire. Altus Power and its contractor dispute those claims.

In a statement following the completed investigation, Lineage said, “Today’s report from the Los Angeles Fire Department validates what we have known all along: This was a solar fire.”

The fire and subsequent cleanup of millions of pounds of rotting food caused a flood of issues for residents living in Boyle Heights, East LA and surrounding communities, including an infestation of flies and pests, nausea and headaches, higher utility bills and other health concerns. 

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Boyle Heights Beat senior reporter Alejandra Molina and LA Local reporter Christopher Damien contributed to this report.

The post LAFD closes investigation into Lineage warehouse fire without determining a cause appeared first on LA Local.