The University of California (UC), a system serving 300,000 students, currently grants only one of its two student regents voting power on the UC Board of Regents. This body sets policy on tuition, academic programs, labor agreements and systemwide priorities. The second student position serves as a non-voting “regent-designate” for a year before rotating into the voting seat.
Student leaders across the UC system argue that this structure leaves the broader and diverse student population underrepresented, especially on issues where student viewpoints diverge. This is precisely why granting a second voting student regent is not only reasonable, but it is necessary. The UC’s governance structure was designed in a different era, long before the student body became as large, diverse and politically engaged as it is today.
Supporters of the change point out that California’s other public higher-education systems, the California State University and the California Community Colleges, both have two voting student representatives, thanks to legislation enacted since 2019.
The UC is governed differently: its autonomy is embedded in the California Constitution. Because of this, state lawmakers cannot simply pass a bill to alter UC’s governing structure. To change the system, the Board of Regents could revise the policy itself, or students could advocate for a constitutional amendment requiring voter approval in 2026.
Current student regent Sonya Brooks has already demonstrated the weight and importance of a UC student vote. In her first months as a voting regent, she opposed granting the UC President the authority to raise tuition for professional degrees, a stance aligned with concerns students often raise about affordability and access. However, a single student vote still cannot accurately reflect the lived experiences of 300,000 students across 10 campuses.
Meanwhile, this year’s non-voting student regent, Miguel Craven, highlights another challenge: the UC system requires students to “consult the institution,” not the other way around. He and other advocates argue that adding a second vote would help broaden student representation, especially since committees, where much of the decision-making groundwork occurs, often meet simultaneously. With only one voting student, students can’t be represented in all the spaces where decisions are ultimately made.
Student leaders like the UC Student Association President, Aditi Hariharan, also stress that “students aren’t a monolith.” The tuition policy offers a clear example: in 2024, the UC student regent voted to support an increase in nonresident tuition even as many students, including Craven, publicly opposed it. A second vote could both diversify viewpoints and make it clear when student opinion is genuinely split. A second voting seat would also help strengthen deliberation, distribute the burden of representation and align UC governance with other public systems in California.
However, current efforts to create a second voting seat face procedural barriers. Advocates are weighing whether to pursue a constitutional amendment, a long, high-stakes process, or to press the UC Regents directly for a policy change. Either path requires political strategy, unity among student groups, and most importantly, the willingness of decision-makers to acknowledge that student participation should evolve with the size and complexity of the system.
That being said, it is undeniable that the UC should modernize its governance and give students the power to influence their numbers, stakes and insights.
