Students confront the UC Regents on divestment, equity and democracy 

On Nov. 20, the UC Board of Regents gathered at UCLA’s Luskin Conference Center. As the governing board of the University of California, the Board of Regents is responsible for overseeing the investment of the UC’s endowment and other major policy decisions. This meeting was the third and final of the week, held at a contentious moment for the UC, as debates over divestment, the Tuition Stability Plan and worker protections sharply divided the community. Thursday also marked the last opportunity for the public to address the Regents during the fall quarter, heightening the urgency of the discussion. The meeting began with a public comment section, where students, staff and faculty were permitted to share their concerns directly with the Regents. Each comment was passionate, urgent and reflective of the broader crisis of governance, transparency and student trust within the UC system — a trust I personally lost over the course of the meeting. 

Students appealed to the Regents to reinstate $17.5 million in funding for Disabled Student Programs (DSPs) at each UC campus. Estimated to run out in Spring 2026, the funding supports the estimated 30,000 disabled undergraduate and graduate students across the UC through services such as the Center for Accessible Education, disability cultural centers, and DSP staff salaries. The potential elimination of this funding would be a consequence of the Trump Administration’s attack on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, as the Administration unfoundedly claims these initiatives are discriminatory. However, Nataliah Cornejo-Ayers, the UC Student Association Disability Justice Officer and a student at UC Berkeley, spoke at length about how the funding cut would have immense repercussions for students — one main concern being how wait times for students to receive accommodations would increase from 24-72 hours to up to eight weeks. Moreover, Cornejo-Ayers rejected implementing artificial intelligence technology to replace staff, saying, “We do not want AI. We want real people to hear our real problems.” 

Other speakers addressed the UC’s response to the demands made of UCLA by the Trump Administration in early August. These demands included policy changes that would not only limit academic freedom and campus protest, but would also greatly impact vulnerable members of the UC community, including undocumented, international and transgender students. Though the UC has not publicly clarified its position, they did attempt to block the release of a proposed settlement agreement, prompting accusations of complicity in undermining democracy. The agreement has now been released to the public, but only after the Regents were sued by the UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA) under the California Public Records Act. Michael Chwe, professor of Political Science at UCLA, urged the Regents to resist these unlawful demands made by the Trump Administration and be transparent with the public. “We are being attacked by profoundly anti-democratic forces. We must fight them, not imitate them,” he said. Another speaker implored the Regents to take a clear public stance, and even legal action when appropriate, to protect trans youth and adults that rely on UCLA’s medical centers. 

Also present at the public comment section were members of two student organizations: Students for Justice in Palestine and Student Labor Advocacy Project. These organizations joined together under the UC Divest Coalition, a coalition of organizations that aims to pressure the UC to divest from BlackRock and Blackstone. In their comments, the students highlighted the Regents’ $8.9 billion investment in Blackstone in 2023, with $4.5 billion invested to save a failing fund. Blackstone is a major private equity firm and is partially responsible for fueling the housing crisis at UCLA, as it owns a large number of rental properties in the Westwood area and has been associated with rent gauging and high eviction rates. The students further emphasized the growing unaffordability of a UC education, especially after Wednesday’s vote to continue the Tuition Stability Plan, which would increase tuition by 1% plus the annual inflation rate each year starting in 2027. They questioned how the UC is able to invest in Blackstone and BlackRock, helping fund the Palestinian genocide as both companies are major investors in weapons and military equipment supplied to Israel, but is not able to adequately support its students, shown by the reduction of the financial aid return rate from 45% to 40% and the decision to increase occupancy in dorms from eight people to ten. “Money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation,” chanted one student to end their comment. 

The students also accused the UC of investing in surveillance technology and AI used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to target immigrant communities. Another commenter, separate from the coalition, focused on the Regents recent vote to approve militarized equipment for the UCLA Police Department, saying, “I’m here today to question why a public university has come to accept the architecture of militarized policing as an ordinary part of its governance and functioning.” This reflects widespread student unease of increased policing and violence on campus.

After the public comment section, the president of the UC Student Association, Aditi Hariharan, and the president of the UC Graduate and Professional Council, Stephanie Valadez, were next to speak. President Hariharan underscored the growing barriers to speaking with the Regents, criticizing the “systematically eroding shared governance.” She highlighted the need for transparency and accountability from the Regents regarding their approach to the demands made by the Trump Administration and the ways in which funds are being allocated. She stated that these two steps are the only ways the Regents can regain the trust of students across the system. President Hariharan further implored the Regents to consider the Open Educational Resources (OER) initiative, which would make course materials and textbooks freely accessible for all students, reducing the high costs they are typically associated with. 

President Valadez took a different approach. She spoke on how the UC, despite being a public education system, will soon be one only the privileged can attend. She also called attention to various areas in which the UC is failing students. One area of concern was that students who report instances of sexual harassment or assault under Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination, feel unprotected. Another is the need to properly implement the SB-98 bill past its current status as a guideline. SB-98 would require the UC to notify certain communities, namely undocumented students, when any form of immigration enforcement is on campus. Since it is currently only a guideline, there is no oversight or enforcement committee to ensure compliance.

As I mentioned above, I was hopeful going into the meeting. I wanted to be optimistic that my school and its leaders would listen to the overwhelming consensus about divestment and the demands of the Trump Administration. I wanted to believe they would make the right decisions for over 295,000 students and 265,000 faculty and staff in the UC system, or at least act like they cared. What I left with, however, was disappointment. I am disappointed in the Regents for their blatant disinterest in the comments, so obvious that President Valadez asked them to meet her halfway and refrain from using their phone or laptop while she spoke. I am disappointed in the Regents for talking amongst themselves while students, staff and faculty shared their concerns. And I am disappointed that, despite credible accusations of being complicit in undermining democracy and supporting an ongoing genocide, and despite nearly every single speaker urging them to engage and take the help they all want to provide, all Chair Janet Reilly said was, “We are listening to your concerns,” closing the public comment session just as she did on the first two days with no real response or accountability. 

Still, I know that there is hope for change. This was not the end. The fight for justice, equity, and democratic engagement continues, driven and demanded by students, staff and faculty alike. Thus, I want to conclude with a chant by the members of the Divest Coalition: “Disclose, divest — we will not stop, we will not rest.”