CU Regent Wanda James

We must reject this vote and what it represents. We must defend the right to speak out, to challenge injustice, and to lead with principle. Our students, our communities, and our democracy deserve nothing less.

If you care about CU. If you believe in racial justice. If you want students to have Regents who fight for them, not punish them. Then step up. We need leadership rooted in values, not appeasement. This moment is a test.

I want to end by thanking Regent Nolbert Chavez for standing firm and voting against the censure. That is what courage and integrity look like.

Without corrective action or further explanation, it would not surprise me if they face electoral challenges in the future. Denver and CD1 deserve representation on the Regents and grassroots Democrats should consider their options to rectify this.

And I say this as someone who has supported Elliot Hood and Ilana Spiegel in the past. I reached out privately to them to express my concerns before speaking out publicly. I disagree with their reasoning and I’ve implored them to change their position.

Regardless of political leanings, Regents must retain the right to speak freely. I strongly oppose many Republican Regents’ views, but I firmly support their right to express them. However, with this new precedent, Regents can only speak about whatever the majority allows.

To be clear, I reject the Board’s constricted definition of "duties of care and loyalty" and believe Regents have broad authority and responsibility to advocate publicly and represent the values of their constituents.

This is not a stretch. This is exactly the trajectory this vote enables.

Will Regents be punished for challenging campus police or opposing state-sanctioned violence? Will Regents be punished for calling on the University to reject appropriations that would fund ICE hit squads, whose sole purpose is to raid campus, kidnap foreign-born students, and disappear them to unknown countries?

This vote also sets a dangerous precedent. It is not hard to imagine a future where ICE targets undocumented students near campus. If a regent speaks out and calls for the University to stop cooperating, will they be accused of disloyalty too?

This vote mirrors how Democrats have failed to wield power at the Federal and State levels, allying themselves with Republicans, but when Republicans seize power, they use it to crush Democrats.

In my opinion, Democrats are falling into traps set by Republicans by choosing to wield power in ways that only serve to harm our own allies and defang our own coalition. This vote gave MAGA Republicans the precedent and political cover they could not have achieved on their own.

Moving forward, to avoid any hypocrisy, I expect Regents Hood, Spiegel, and Rennison to scrutinize all actions by their Republican colleagues that in any way undermine university funding.

If “duty of care and loyalty” is now the Board’s standard, then it must be applied consistently. Many of these same Republican Regents have supported policies that damage the university’s mission and directly harm students. Yet, they face no scrutiny.

This includes stripping hundreds of millions of research dollars on these issues from the university. Trump’s “Project 2025” is an explicit plan to slash higher education funding and destroy academic freedom.

Republican Regents belong to a party that is actively trying to defund public universities, dismantle diversity and inclusion efforts, and strip away reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights.

My main concern remains that elected Democrats helped MAGA Republicans carry out a political attack on fellow Democrats while they actively undermined the entire higher education system.

There is no credible evidence that she acted in bad faith, nor is there any violation of law or ethics. Instead, this censure appears designed to punish a Regent for speech.

The investigation itself admits Regent James voiced her concerns only after the Governor had already decided to cut funding, yet she was still scapegoated.