I got it if you needed a reminder/
Cause I can give you a friendly reminder/
The specific paragraph to look for in this item is the following:
*Nothing in this policy constitutes a contract, an offer of a contract, or a promise that any fees ultimately authorized by The Regents will be limited by any term or provision of this policy. The Regents expressly reserves the right and option, in its absolute discretion, to establish fees at any level it deems appropriate based on a full consideration of the circumstances, and nothing in this policy shall be a basis for any party to rely on fees of a specified level or based on a specified formula.
The paragraph will be significantly added on as a footnote to all of the UC’s significant student fee policies. What the paragraph clarifies is while there remains a student fee policy, nothing in the UC demands that the UC Regents actually need to follow the policy. The policy is not a contract with the students, or an obligation with the students, or a promise to anyone that fees will necessarily need to follow any regulation within any student fee policy.
What should be noted is that the UC Board of Regents has always maintained that the policies that they’ve put out are more of guidelines rather than regulations – these are best practices, things that would be done under the best circumstances. However, they’ve always maintained that they have the right to not follow the policy when it is necessary for the University, an argument they’ve maintained throughout a good number of court cases.
Essentially, this statement/paragraph addition is just a written out form of what is already been argued out. It’s a reminder.
What compels UCOP to propose what seems to be then, an arbitrary reminder of a stance they’ve already taken?
Because the UC Regents (the organization, not the individuals) have just been hit with a 28 million dollar class action lawsuit called Luquetta v. Regents. We’ve outlined the case and its history in the link. Luquetta v. Regents is a legal reminder of another 40m lawsuit the UC was hit with in Kashmiri v. Regents. In both cases, the argument that the UC has made, that their policies are not a contract/obligation/promise to anyone about student fees, were shot down, and the UC was forced to repay professional students for their mid-year fee increase.
The paragraph addition to the UC Student Fee policy, then, is to provide some legal cover for these kinds of lawsuits in the past. To have written out that agreement, allows the UC to say that they have really covered all their bases, and that the student fee policies are not, in any way, the contracts/obligations/promises.
If you wanna see what the student fee policies are (that are now not at all binding), you can check them out here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/mar10/j2attach.pdf