Out of state, out of mind.

That’s what the University of California Board of Regents seems to think when it has to make concrete decisions about nonresident students.

Wobbling has become a norm for the University’s heralds. At last month’s meeting, for example, many came in determined to increase nonresident tuition by $762 to fund the UC. By the end, it voted, against the recommendation of its Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, to table the vote. Their reasoning: To work out a plan for potentially providing need-based financial aid so as to not box out low-income nonresident communities from the University.

Two months later, UC President Janet Napolitano indicated in a meeting with Jamie Kennerk, the Undergraduate Students Association Council external vice president, that if the tuition increase is approved, it would likely come with a reintroduction of financial aid for nonresident students.

Keyword: would.

As nice as Napolitano’s statements sound, they only add to the uncertain future nonresident UC students face. Regents have gone back and forth on important decisions pertaining to out-of-state students’ tuition costs, sometimes in the same year. Right now is no different.

The regents are tasked with being a decision-making body for the University. And they need to decide: Forfeit nonresident financial aid for good or go all-in and create a funding stream to supply such an initiative.

Whatever decision it is they make, the University needs to stick to it.

Attending a UC school doesn’t come cheap for nonresident students, after all. The regents voted to increase their tuition by 3.5% in 2018, racking up the total cost to a whopping average of $42,900 per year. In that same meeting, the Board of Regents discussed if it should bring back out-of-state aid, which it stopped providing in 2016 so as to increase the number of Californian enrollees. The conversation was inconclusive, and nothing came to fruition.

Not much has changed since. The routine is almost rehearsed: The Finance and Capital Strategies Committee recommends a nonresident tuition hike, the larger body debates whether such an increase would hinder international and low-income students from being able to pay for a UC education, Napolitano chimes in with a curt message about the University urgently needing to pass the increase, senior regents rally around the president’s call, and the body deliberates for an unpredictable amount of time.

The result has been delays on tuition hike votes, leaving students unclear about their immediate futures.

Of course, deliberations are necessary for any body – especially one that manages a multibillion-dollar university system – to identify the best course of action. And the regents do indeed have good discussion points in their regular meetings.

But that’s the point: They’re only discussions. The lack of action combined with the otherwise productive discussion over the years makes for a doublespeak that leaves students caught in the crosshairs.

There shouldn’t be ambiguity surrounding the UC’s price tag. Empty promises, after all, don’t pay the bills – and out-of-state students have a lot of them.

Neither do elaborate pro-con lists.