The student regent is a position on the University of California Board of Regents created by a 1974 California ballot proposition, Proposition 4, to represent University of California (UC) students on the university system's governing board. Student regents serve an approximately one-year term as Regent-designate, followed by a one-year term as a full voting member of the Regents.

Selection process Virtually any UC student in good academic standing may apply to be student regent. Student government officials from all of the university system's campuses interview 6 to 8 semifinalists chosen out of the applicant pool by an annual systemwide student commission. The group of officials selects 3 to 5 finalists, who are then interviewed by the Board of Regents’ Special Committee to Select a Student Regent. If the committee does not reject the slate of prospective nominees, it recommends one of the finalists to the full board of University of California Regents, which then votes on the nomination. Once approved, the nominee becomes Student Regent-designate, shadowing the student regent for approximately one academic year until the beginning of their formal, year-long term on July 1 of the next year.

Prior to a 2018 policy revision, southern and northern regional UC student nominating commissions selected ten semifinalists from those who applied. The first round of interviews was conducted by the University of California Student Association (UCSA) board of directors, who nominated three finalists to the special committee.

Traditionally, the position alternates between undergraduate and graduate students as well as between the various UC campuses. However, some students involved in the selection process have said it may be biased towards graduate students, as well as towards students from UCLA and UC Berkeley, traditionally considered the flagship campuses of the UC system.

History Early history

The Board of Regents has had a student Regent, each appointed for a one-year term, since 1975 as a result of a 1974 State Constitutional amendment allowing for the position.

Master Plan for Higher Education

In 1973, the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education issued its report containing over fifty recommendations. Recommendation 7 offered six proposed changes to the structure of the UC Board of Regents including, a peer-selected faculty member and peer-selected student shall be non-voting members, with the right of full participation. The Joint Committee's report stated that a governing board must have credibility with its constituency. In higher education students and faculty are a part of that community. Therefore, one student and one faculty member, each peer-selected, should be added to the three statewide boards and each community college district board.

At meetings of the advisory group of Regents on the Master Plan for Higher Education held on March 6 and 30, 1973, it was proposed that the Regents’ Advisory Group oppose Recommendation 7. Changes in the Board's membership would require a constitutional amendment, which, when discussed in the Legislature, would raise other issues which would threaten the independence of the University.

It was noted that the Student Body President's Council and the Student Lobby were very much in favor of having some type of student representation on the Board. It was also felt that there would be considerable support for the recommendation in the Legislature. Regent Carter and Regent DeWitt Higgs raised concern about Regents representing specific constituencies. Assemblyman John Vasconcellos responded that partly because of such concerns raised, the Joint Committee would recommend that the student and faculty representatives not be voting members of the Board.

Constitutional Amendment

Legislation calling for a constitutional amendment to Article IX, Section 9 of the State Constitution relating to membership, terms and method of selection of the Regents was adopted. In November 1974, the constitutional amendment was approved by the voters. The approved amendment (Proposition 4) included the following language:

"the members of the board may, in their discretion, following procedures established by them and after consultation with representatives of faculty and students of the university, including appropriate officers of the academic senate and student governments, appoint to the board either or both of the following persons as members with all rights of participation: a member of the faculty at a campus of the university or of another institution of higher education; a person enrolled as a student at a campus of the university for each regular academic term during his service as a member of the board. Any person so appointed shall serve for not less than one year commencing on July 1."

Implementation

The implementation of this amendment was referred to the Board's Special Committee on Reorganization. At its meeting on December 10, 1974, the Special Committee heard from Larry Miles, President of the Student Body President's Council (SBPC), who stated that there was strong student interest in having a student Regent. He hoped that the relationship of the SBPC and the Board, whereby the SBPC had the opportunity to articulate their views as advocates of student issues, would continue if a student Regent were appointed. When asked what a student Regent might be expected to contribute to the operation of an institution the magnitude of the University, Miles responded that a student Regent could give new direction and perspective on subjects with which he is particularly familiar, such as student financial aid and affirmative action. Miles submitted a proposed Student Regent Selection Procedure for consideration by The Regents.

At the Special Committee's meeting of January 15, 1975, General Counsel further advised that the Political Reform Act of 1974 would not preclude a University student from serving as a Regent, although the student Regent, if a recipient of $250 or more of student financial aid in the preceding twelve months, would be required to refrain from participating in financial aid matters affecting him.

Regents then questioned Miles on the selection process which had been proposed by the SBPC. A nominating committee of one graduate and one undergraduate student from each campus was part of the proposal. The original proposal called for one candidate to be nominated; however, the SBPC agreed to amend this to provide that three finalists be nominated for final selection by the Board.

SBPC members again submitted statements endorsing the concept of a student Regent. Miles stated that while the SBPC is the student representative, the student Regent would act as a trustee. There would be no affiliation between the SBPC and the student Regent. Miles noted that according to research, twenty-four boards in twenty states had a total of thirty-four student members. He also suggested that the Board should at least try having a student Regent for a year. At the end of the year the Regents would have the opportunity to decide again whether the experiment was a success.

The Special Committee met again in February 1975, at which time two proposals for the appointment of a student Regent were presented. The first proposal recommended that, on an experimental basis for a two-year period, a student be appointed to the Board of Regents. The appointment was to be by the Board upon the recommendation of a special committee of the Board appointed for that purpose. The special committee was to make its recommendation from a panel of three names submitted by the SBPC.

Two nominating commissions, one from the four northern campuses and one from the five southern campuses, would be established with one graduate and one undergraduate representative from each campus. Four candidates from the northern commission and five from the southern commission would be selected to be interviewed by the SBPC. From these nine candidates, three nominees would be selected.

The alternative proposal recommended a student Regent be appointed by the Board upon the recommendation of a joint Regents-students committee.

Regents’ Concerns

Regent Watkins felt that, while it was desirable that communications between Regents and students be improved, he was concerned that the appointment of a student Regent and a faculty representative to the Board in effect would downgrade the chancellors, who are the leaders of the campuses. Regent Wilson agreed with Regent Watkins and offered as a substitute motion that a student representative be appointed to attend all meetings and to be seated at the meeting table with all rights and privileges of participation other than voting. Regents Coblentz and Dutton disagreed with these suggestions, stating that the intent of Proposition 4 was that there be a student Regent.

Regent Smith reiterated earlier concerns that, because of the manner of the selection and realities of relationships, a student Regent, in effect, becomes an extension of a student organization. He felt that the proposed selection process was contrary to Proposition 4 because it delegated the selection function to a student government organization. The students, Regent Smith said, have stated that one of the criteria for selection of a candidate would be familiarity with campus issues and the position taken with respect to those issues. That, he said, is inconsistent with the function of a trustee. Regent Dutton believed it was important that a selection procedure be adopted under which the student Regent would have credibility with the student community and would not be stigmatized by the manner in which they were brought to the Board.

President Hitch commented that he had approached the subject with the same point of view as Regent Smith, but his conclusion concerning that proposal was just the opposite in that it assures that the student Regent will be a trustee. The nominee could not be an officer of the student government. Also, he would be selected by an outgoing SBPC and not the Council serving during the tenure of the student Regent.

Procedures Adopted

The first proposal to appoint a student Regent on an experimental basis for two years was recommended for approval by the Special Committee. The full Board discussed the recommendation at its February 1975 meeting, with several Regents expressing their opposition to appointing a student Regent. Amendments to the procedure for selecting the student Regent were offered, including conducting the interviews of the three nominees in open session and allowing two students from the SBPC to sit as ex officio members of the special committee. Governor Brown, who endorsed the appointment of a student Regent, suggested the following amendment to the recommendation before the Board:"The Chair of the Student Body President's Council shall sit as an ex officio member of the special committee with all rights and privileges except voting."This amendment was adopted, as was the recommendation of the Special Committee on Reorganization.

At its March 1975 meeting the Special Committee on Reorganization considered a proposal concerning the seating of the student Regent-designate. The proposal, after some amendment, stated that from the time of appointment of a student Regent, but prior to commencement of service as a member of the Board, the person so appointed shall be known as a Regent-designate, shall be invited to attend all meetings, shall be seated at the table with full participation in discussion and debate, and shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred. After discussion, which centered mainly on the fact that with the student Regent-designate and Alumni Regents-designate, also new additions to the Board, the number of people at the table was getting rather large, this proposal was recommended to the Board and adopted by the Regents in March 1975.

First Student Regent