The University of Southern California (USC) is under fire after with less than 24 hours’ notice. The reason? None of the polling candidates are people of color. It was a crushingly revealing moment in a state where universities have long defied voters who demanded an end to affirmative action in admissions.
USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and ABC/KABC Los Angeles were scheduled to co-host the debate at Bovard Auditorium on Tuesday evening. Then it was canceled on Monday.
Former Biden Health and Human Services Secretary and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had sent a letter to President Beong-Soo Kim, alleging “election rigging” and objecting “you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating.”
For many, USC succeeded in beclowning itself by first defending USC Professor Christian Grose’s “data-driven” selection process and then abruptly canceling the debate lineup selected through that process. If that seems incomprehensible, welcome to American higher education.
The cancellation is only the latest unexpected turn in the election, where the two top vote-getters will face each other in a runoff election.
California Democrats are in a panic as two Republicans currently top the polling:Â Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and commentator Steve Hilton.
At the same time, the leading Democrats include controversial candidates such as former Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Eric Swalwell. Porter is  and abuse at staff members. Last year, Swalwell was outvoted by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who died in March 2025. However, they are still doing markedly better than Becerra with voters.
USC insisted that it “vigorously defends the independence, objectivity, and integrity of USC Professor Christian Grose, whose data-driven candidate viability formula is based on extensive research and enjoys broad academic support.”
That “data-driven system” produced a lineup of Bianco and Hilton as well as Democrats billionaire , San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Porter and Swalwell.
Advocates then went into full rage, and rigged. Becerra declared:
“USC goes to great lengths to justify its exclusionary candidate formula. But you cant escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me.”
However, the methodology considered both polling percentage and fundraising with the polling given greater weight.
Becerra has been shown at 3%, notably within the statistical margin of error for most polls. In other words, he could be closer to zero. (He is shown as tied with Mahan, who Becerra appears to be referencing in his letter as lacking higher polling).
USC then yielded after trying to expand the number of participants to appease objectors. In a statement, USC stated:
“We recognize that concerns about the for tomorrows gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters. Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrows debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrows debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.”
Becerra took a victory lap: “We fought. We won! … Thank you to everyone who stood up, raised hell and demanded justice. Never give up when youre fighting for fairness!”
At least Becerra’s position is comprehensible. He has long defended . Indeed, despite statewide votes against the practice, California universities continue to be accused of applying racial criteria in admissions. Becerra is effectively demanding such action for himself as a “candidate of color.”
USC was left stumbling in search of a place to hide. USC scholars defended the process th
