The University of Southern California (USC) is under fire after canceling the California gubernatorial debate with less than 24 hours notice. The reason? None of the voting candidates are people of color. It was a crushingly revealing moment in a state where universities have long defied voters demanding an end to affirmative action in admissions.
USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and ABC/KABC Los Angeles were set to jointly host the debate in the Bovard Auditorium on Tuesday evening. Then it was canceled on Monday.
Former Biden Secretary of Health and Human Services and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had sent a letter to President Beong-Soo Kim, alleging “election fraud” and objecting “you have disqualified all candidates of color from running.”
To many, USC managed to blind 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.
JON STEWART DESTROYS CALIFORNIA DEMS, WARNING THEIR EIGHT CANDIDATES COULD SPLIT THE VOTE, LEAD TO GOP VICTORY
An earlier debate that did take place. From left to right, Xavier Becerra, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Tom Steyer, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee stand on stage during the California gubernatorial candidate debate on Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Laure Andrillon)
The cancellation is just the latest unexpected twist in the election, which will pit the top two voters against each other in a runoff election.
California Democrats are in a panic as two Republicans currently top the polls: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and commentator Steve Hilton.
At the same time, leading Democrats include controversial candidates such as former Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Eric Swalwell. Porter is best known nationally for using profanity and abuse toward staff members. Last year, Swalwell was outvoted by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who died in March 2025. However, they still do significantly better than Becerra in terms of voters.
BIANCO SAYS ‘DEMOCRATS POLICIES ARE INDEFENSIBLE’ AS GOP CANDIDATES TOP GOVERNOR IN CALIFORNIA
USC emphasized 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 Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Porter and Swalwell.
Supporters then flew into a frenzy, calling the trial racist and rigged. Becerra stated:
CHAD BIANCO REVEALS HIS SPORTS VISION IN CALIFORNIA: SAVING THE LA OLYMPIC CONSEQUENCES AND THE TRANS ATHLETE CRISIS
“USC is doing everything it can to justify the exclusionary candidate formula. But you cannot escape the odious outcome: you have disqualified all candidates of color from running, while inviting a white candidate who has NEVER scored higher than some of the candidates of color, including me.”
However, the methodology took into account both voting percentage and fundraising, with greater weight given to polls.
To many, USC managed to blind 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.
Becerra turns out to be at 3%, which is notably within the statistical margin of error for most polls. In other words, it could be closer to zero. (He is shown to be connected to Mahan, who Becerra appears to be referring to in his letter as not having higher poll numbers).
CALIFORNIA EXCLUDING DEMS TO ICE DURING GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE
USC then relented after trying to expand the number of participants to appease opponents. In a statement, USC stated:
“We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow’s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues important to voters. Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC has failed to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates for tomorrow’s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will seek other opportunities to educate voters about 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 you fight for fairness!”
NO CLEAR CHAMPION OF CASH REPAIRS AMONG DEMOCRATS IN CALIFORNIA’S GUBERNATORIAL RACE
Xavier Becerra (left) and Steve Hilton participate in the California candidate debate for governor of California on Tuesday, February 3, 2026 in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Laure Andrillon)
At least Becerra’s position is understandable. He has long defended affirmative action in California. Despite statewide votes against this practice, California universities continue to be accused of applying racial criteria in admissions. Becerra is actually demanding such action for himself as a “candidate of color.”
USC was left stumbling looking for a place to hide. USC scientists defended the process that affectively sunk USC:
“We all expect and welcome critical engagement from within and outside the academy. What Professor Grose has faced, however, is not a substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political class include completely baseless accusations of election fraud, inconsistency, bias and data manipulation. These are damaging character assassinations, not substantive debate. They join other efforts to weaponize or defame scholars that are all too common in America.
Whatever their intent, the effect of these attacks is to curtail academic freedom and diminish scholarly willingness to make their voices heard in the public sphere. It is imperative that universities defend the integrity of their faculties when it is unfairly attacked.”
That’s a strong statement if you don’t consider that the university relented, canceled the debate and meekly said it will “pursue other opportunities to educate voters about the candidates and issues.” The “strong armament” succeeded.
What is especially disappointing is that I just spoke at USC and was impressed by the members of the USC community who were trying to restore diversity of views. The event was sponsored by The Center for the Political Future, which sponsored the debate. It was also organized by the USC Open Dialogue Project and the USC Chapter of the Heterodox Academy. Both have written in defense of this trial.
Professor Morris Levy with Heterodox wrote: “[USC’s] The message is unmistakable: USC allowed ‘concerns’ and a public ‘distraction’ to override its own institutional belief that the selection formula was data-driven and supported by research.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
Therefore, Heterodox, the Center for the Political Future and ABC7 issued statements indicating their willingness to move forward and also defended the selection process. That left only USC.
In this controversy, USC managed to find the least defensible ground to express its position. It denounced the cancellation campaign, but then essentially gave in to it.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The alternative is to stick with your race-blind, data-driven process and hold the debate for all invited candidates who are willing to attend.
While USC was recently criticized for its fake punt in the game against Northwestern, in this play it actually punted and left the field.
CLICK HERE TO JONATHAN TURLEY
