The UC Board of Regents approved a statement to clarify student fee policies, explaining that the regents can change fees to any level considered appropriate and that they are not contractually bound to limit fees.
By adding the statement, the University of California explicitly states that nothing in its policy promises that fees will be limited, and that the regents can adjust fees depending on the circumstances.
Previously, some students mistakenly thought that unexpected fee increases constituted a policy violation.
“This language doesn’t change the current authority of the board,” Regent Monica Lozano said.
Charles Robinson, vice president for legal affairs and the regents’ general counsel, explained the proposal, which simply provides an “abundance of caution” to what some regents see as an already clear policy.
“We have a history of litigation in this area that has not been successful from the UC standpoint,” Regents Chairman Russell Gould said.
In recent court cases, graduate students confronted the UC over unexpected and seemingly prohibited fee hikes.
For example, the 2006 court case Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California was a class-action lawsuit that focused on fee hikes during the 2002-2003 school year. The case forced the UC system to pay $40 million to former professional school students.
Representatives from graduate student associations at UC Davis and UC Merced presented their concerns about graduate student fees and student advocacy before the vote.
“An ongoing issue for graduate students is as the state is defunding higher education and fees are increasing, graduate students are having to borrow more, and as they’re taking out more loans “¦ they’re also faced with a limited time in which they can borrow,” said Malaika Singleton, chair of the UC Davis Graduate Student Association.
Students who stay more than four years are often forced to take out private loans that have higher interest rates, burrowing into further debt, she added.
Student regent Jesse Bernal was the only member to protest, emphasizing the negative impact on student potential and the fact that students need to be given more notification prior to fee increases.
Lozano pointed out that the content of the statement was not being debated, only a statement clarifying the policy itself.
Nevertheless, the board approved the adoption of the clarifying statement.