\n<\/p>\n
The University of Southern California canceled a high-profile gubernatorial primary debate just hours before it was set to take place following backlash over the event\u2019s lack of racial diversity among invited candidates. The debate, scheduled for March 24 and hosted by USC\u2019s Dornsife Center for the Political Future, was scrapped after criticism that the selection criteria excluded several candidates of color.<\/span><\/p>\n The original lineup featured six candidates: Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, and Democrats Tom Steyer, Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Matt Mahan. Absent were several established Democratic candidates of color, including former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former State Controller Betty Yee, and State Superintendent Tony Thurmond.<\/span><\/p>\n USC had initially defended its selection process, saying invitations were based on a \u201cdata-driven\u201d formula developed by a university professor that weighed polling and fundraising. But critics argued the methodology produced a skewed outcome in a crowded race with no clear frontrunner.<\/span><\/p>\n The controversy escalated after California legislative leaders <\/span>demanded<\/span><\/a> the university expand the debate field. \u201cEvery excluded leading candidate\u2014Xavier Becerra, Betty Yee, Tony Thurmond, and Antonio Villaraigosa\u2014is a person of color,\u201d lawmakers wrote in a letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. \u201cWhen a methodology produces this outcome \u2026 the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it.\u201d The letter went further, calling on voters to boycott the event if the university refused to revise its criteria.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIf USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate,\u201d the lawmakers wrote. \u201cIf the university will not give voters a fair shot at evaluating everyone running for governor, voters should find other ways to learn about the candidates.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Despite standing by the formula\u2019s academic backing, USC ultimately <\/span>reversed course<\/span><\/a> late Monday, announcing the debate would be canceled after organizers failed to reach an agreement on expanding the stage. \u201cWe recognize that concerns about the selection criteria \u2026 have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters,\u201d the university said in a statement.<\/span><\/p>\n The decision comes amid an unusually crowded and fluid race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, with no candidate <\/span>polling<\/span><\/a> above 20% in the last month and multiple contenders clustered within single digits of one another. That lack of a clear frontrunner has heightened the stakes around debate access, with candidates arguing that exclusion from major forums could significantly impact voter awareness in a low-information primary.<\/span><\/p>\n California\u2019s primary system adds another layer of complexity. Under the state\u2019s \u201ctop-two\u201d format, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot, and only the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election. That structure has raised concerns among Democrats that a fragmented field could allow two Republicans to advance if the vote is split.<\/span><\/p>\n San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, whose inclusion drew particular scrutiny due to his late entry into the race and strong fundraising from <\/span>wealthy donors<\/span><\/a>, said canceling the debate was the wrong approach. \u201cThe answer isn\u2019t to cancel debates, it\u2019s to hear all voices,\u201d he wrote on <\/span>X<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, one of the excluded candidates, praised the decision. \u201cUSC made the right call, even if it came late and under pressure,\u201d he wrote in a <\/span>post<\/span><\/a> after the decision.<\/span><\/p>\n The tension surrounding how institutions balance data-driven decision-making with political and social considerations is not unfamiliar in California, a state where <\/span>diversity<\/span><\/a> is treated as a central benchmark of legitimacy. In this case, sadly, a formula designed to measure candidate viability ended up triggering the very kind of equity concerns it was meant to avoid, ultimately leaving voters with no debate at all.<\/span><\/p>\n