UC Regents Knew SAT Ban Was Wrong—Voted for It Anyway

Newly surfaced archival footage from the May 2020 UC Regents meeting reveals a stunning truth: the very board members who unanimously voted to drop the SAT actually believed, based on faculty data, that they were making the wrong decision—but deferred to then-President Janet Napolitano anyway.

Berkeley EECS Chair Jelani Nelson watched the full meeting in the UC archives and compiled clips that expose how badly the Regents failed California students.

Archived tweet

The Regents were right in 2020, the data proves it, and they are still right today. The UC system must bring back merit in schools. https://t.co/TRy6kku4ue

Garry Tan @garrytan January 24, 2026

The Regents were right then. The data proves it now. And it’s time to fix this catastrophic mistake.

The Archival Receipts: Regents Knew the Data Didn’t Support Dropping SAT

Professor Nelson’s deep dive into the May 2020 UC Regents meeting uncovered something remarkable: multiple Regents openly objecting to the SAT ban during the meeting itself, citing faculty research showing the test was not an impediment to underrepresented students.

Regent Lansing was blunt: “I am a believer in data, and in science. And all of the data that I have listened to from the faculty says that the test, and you said it yourself in the beginning Janet, is not an impediment.” Regent Sures echoed the point: “Facts matter, and data does matter. And we went to the faculty and asked for their opinion and their presentation, and they presented data.”

Archived tweet

Regent Sures: "I'm not a fan of the SAT... I think it's a flawed test... but I do think that facts do matter. Let me say that again: facts matter, and data does matter. And we went to the faculty and asked for their opinion and their presentation, and they presented data." https://t.co/KyHgG9qxrv

Jelani Nelson @minilek January 23, 2026

Regent Makarechian warned presciently about admitting students who would “jam up the whole classroom and waste a lot of time and not be qualified to even get in.” He suggested those students go to community college first to fill in gaps—a path now made impossible by AB 1705.

Despite all these objections, the final vote was unanimous. Every single Regent collapsed into Napolitano’s will.

Even Napolitano Admitted a Test Was Needed

The most damning moment came when then-Regent Janet Reilly—now the UC Board Chair—grilled Napolitano directly about whether removing the SAT would decrease student preparation, academic success, and retention rates.

When Reilly asked point-blank, “So you do think that some sort of a test really is necessary?” Napolitano answered “yes.” And yet she remained dead set on eliminating the SAT requirement anyway.

Archived tweet

@RahimNathwani One thing that was clear from the full meeting video was that, whereas the Regents were hesitant, President Napolitano was dead set on getting rid of it. Something that's different now: President Napolitano is gone.

Jelani Nelson @minilek January 23, 2026

Nelson notes something striking about the Regents’ deference: “These regents are not people you would expect to be spineless—many of them are CEOs of major companies, and you don’t get into such positions without being strong-willed.” Perhaps a parallel lawsuit filed in December 2019 was in the back of their minds, influencing the unanimous vote despite their stated beliefs.

The Data Proves the Regents Right: UCSD’s Alarming Findings

The consequences of the SAT ban are now undeniable. A recent UCSD report documented what the Regents feared in 2020: a “steep decline” in student preparation.

One in twelve admitted UC students now has only middle school level math skills. These aren’t marginal admits—these are students who supposedly completed all calculus prerequisites. UCSD is now planning to expand remediation opportunities, acknowledging the problem the Regents predicted.

Meanwhile, many other universities are reversing their test-optional policies and bringing back the SAT. The UC is behind the curve on a crisis it created.

AB 1705: Making the Problem Worse at Community Colleges

The crisis extends beyond UC admissions. AB 1705, passed in 2022, effectively bans remedial courses at California community colleges. According to EdSource, the Chancellor’s office defines “highly unlikely to succeed” as an 85% failure rate—meaning a student with only a 15% chance of passing calculus gets placed directly into it.

The CSU Mathematics Council, the Academic Senate of California Community Colleges, and the Academic Senate of CSU have all passed resolutions opposing this insane 85% failure threshold. Even the CA Community College Student Senate passed a formal resolution against AB 1705—the very students the law was supposedly designed to help.

Remember Regent Makarechian’s suggestion that underprepared students could go to community college first to fill in gaps? AB 1705 now makes that path impossible.

What’s Different Now: The Path Forward for Merit

Here’s why this moment matters: the circumstances have fundamentally changed since 2020.

Janet Napolitano is gone. Michael Drake is now UC President. The 2021 lawsuit settlement that barred SAT use expired after Spring 2025. And crucially, the current UC Board Chair is Janet Reilly—the same Regent who most aggressively questioned Napolitano in 2020.

The Academic Senate could force the issue by voting to bring back Senate Regulation 419 in the Assembly. UC Regents serve 12-year terms appointed by the governor—the composition has likely shifted since the 2020 vote.

The archival footage proves what many suspected: the UC Regents knew in 2020 they were ignoring faculty data and their own judgment. Now, with Napolitano gone, the lawsuit settlement expired, and overwhelming evidence of declining student preparation, the path is clear.

The question is whether the Regents will correct their mistake—or whether Californians will need to pressure them to do so.

Follow @garrytan for more.