Total contributions: $41,743, including over $36,000 Smith has contributed himself
Total money spent: $35,819. About $30,000 went toward collecting petition signatures.
Education: B.A., CU Boulder, 2015.
CU connections: Smith grew up in Boulder and graduated from CU Boulder.
Job: Geospatial data scientist
Endorsements: Unions including United Campus Workers Colorado, the Working Families Party and the Communications Workers of America, as well as state Rep. Junie Joseph, Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy, Boulder City Councilmembers Nicole Speer and Tina Marquis, Lafayette Mayor Pro Tem Tim Barnes, former Boulder Police Oversight Panel co-chair Ariel Amaru and former Boulder City Councilmember and county treasurer candidate Rachel Friend. Read the full list.
Questionnaire
1) What is your personal connection to CU, why are you interested in serving on the Board of Regents, and what sets you apart from the other candidates in this race?
I’m from Boulder and have been around CU for my whole life. I enrolled at CU Boulder in 2011 and graduated in 2015 with a degree in Economics and International Affairs, minoring in Geology, Political Science and Russian Studies. CU shaped who I am, and I want all Coloradans to benefit from the opportunities it gave me.
I’m running because CU should reflect Coloradans’ values and deliver real solutions on affordability, student success and supporting the people who make CU the institution it is today.
What sets me apart: I’m the only candidate who attended CU, the only one who graduated in this century, and the only union-endorsed candidate.
2) Before running for regent, what have you done to support, strengthen or invest in public education?
My investment in public education has been lifelong. I’m entirely a product of it, having attended Boulder public schools, Boulder High, and CU Boulder. I know firsthand what public higher education makes possible, because it made my own path possible.
I’m not a career politician. I’m running to put my stake as a CU graduate and a believer in public education to work. I’ll hold the board accountable to students, workers, and affordability, rather than the status quo.
3) Regents are responsible for major policy, governance and budget decisions across the university system. What experience do you have making high-level organizational or financial decisions?
For more than eight years I’ve worked as a geospatial data scientist at a Colorado satellite imagery company, turning complex data into decisions that carry real operational and financial weight. I’m comfortable ensuring budgets are realistic, weighing tradeoffs and pressing whether spending actually delivers results.
The CU system runs on billions of dollars, and every line should be tested against whether it serves students and CU’s public mission. I’d align resources with measurable outcomes like four-year graduation and scrutinize commercial ventures that don’t serve that purpose.
4) Do you support collective bargaining rights for university employees, and would you vote in favor of them if they came before the board? Why or why not?
Yes. I’ve spoken in favor of collective bargaining at two Regents meetings this year. I support collective bargaining rights for university employees, and I would vote in favor. I would also ensure the rest of the Board understands why this is important. The faculty, staff and graduate student workers are the people who actually deliver CU’s mission, and they see the barriers to student success every day. Bargaining in good faith isn’t just fair to them — it produces better policy, because the people designing it are the people doing the work. A university that respects its workforce recruits and retains better talent, which directly benefits students. This is a core commitment of my campaign, not an afterthought.
I’m proud to be endorsed by United Campus Workers Colorado, the union fighting for collective bargaining for non-classified employees.
5) Would you support CU joining the proposed statewide defense compact against federal threats to academic freedom and university funding, as proposed by the Boulder Faculty Assembly? Why or why not?
Yes. The compact the Boulder Faculty Assembly approved in October asks Colorado’s higher-ed institutions to stand together with a shared defense fund and pooled legal, governance and public-affairs resources so that when one institution faces a politically motivated attack on its funding or academic freedom, it isn’t standing alone. I share the principle that an infringement against one Colorado institution is a concern for all of them. Protecting CU’s research and academic freedom is a plank of my platform, and joining a coalition modeled on what Big Ten faculty senates have already done is prudent and proactive. I’d want CU to engage seriously on the structure and financial commitment, and I’d push CU to help lead it.
6) In recent months, protesters have urged the CU Regents to end CU Boulder’s contract with Key Lime Air because of the company’s contracts with ICE to transport detainees. Would you support the regents ending that contract? Why or why not?
Yes, I support ending it.
CU’s contracts should reflect the values of the Coloradans the university serves, and a contract with a company that profits from transporting ICE detainees doesn’t meet that bar. As a regent I’d want to see the full terms and understand any operational dependencies before a vote, but my position is that CU shouldn’t be doing business with a vendor whose work is tied to a deportation apparatus that many in our community find deeply objectionable. Where the university has a choice about who it partners with, it should choose partners consistent with its public mission and its people’s values.
7) How would you balance concerns about campus safety, harassment and hate speech with protections for free expression and political protest, and what role should the Board of Regents play in those decisions?
CU must be a place where students, faculty, and staff can speak, protest and disagree vigorously. That’s the entire point of a university, and protecting free expression and academic freedom is central to my platform. Nobody should face retaliation for safely expressing their views. At the same time, no one can learn or work while being harassed or targeted, so the line I’d draw is the one the law already recognizes: protected speech, however offensive, is protected, but targeted harassment, threats and conduct that denies someone equal access to their education are not.
The Board of Regents shouldn’t be in the business of policing the content of speech or adjudicating individual incidents, as that’s a recipe for both bad decisions and politicized ones. The Board’s role is to set clear, consistent, content-neutral policies, ensure they’re applied evenly regardless of viewpoint, and make sure the professionals who administer them have the resources and accountability to do it fairly. Even-handed process is what protects everyone.
8) University leadership and the regents recently faced criticism over a $2 million partnership with OpenAI to provide ChatGPT access to students and staff. The board is now considering a broader AI policy framework. In your view, what should be the principles or priorities guiding CU’s approach to artificial intelligence?
I was critical of the OpenAI partnership. A $2 million, university-wide commitment to a single commercial vendor is exactly the kind of consequential academic decision that shouldn’t be made top-down through a procurement deal. It should be made through shared governance with the faculty, who have the actual expertise in teaching, research, and academic integrity. As a data scientist, I work with these tools daily, so I understand where they are useful. But the process had it backwards, and process is what builds trust.
My priorities: Faculty governance should lead academic decisions, like what classes should use AI.
Data privacy and security: any arrangement routing student and staff data through a private company demands ironclad, transparent protections.
No vendor lock-in: this field moves fast, and dependence on one provider is a strategic risk.
Educational integrity and equity: AI should strengthen learning, not hollow it out, and access shouldn’t widen divides. A commitment this size deserves transparency about what students and faculty get, and whether it serves CU’s public mission or a vendor’s market position.