immunity. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341, 345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs cite Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973), as implicit authority that “students have the right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to sue a state university.” The facts of that case do not support the Plaintiffs’ argument here. In Vlandis, a group of University of Connecticut students challenged the university’s tuition classification policy in a suit against the university’s director of admissions — not against the state itself. Id. We therefore ho r, 38 F.3d 505, 508 (10th Cir.1994) (“[U]nder Oklahoma law, the Board of Regents of the University is an arm of the state.... ”); Hartman v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 22 P.3d 524, 528 (Colo.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, nothing in the record indicates
holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that the puc is not an arm of the state and rejecting claim of immunity holding a state agency as an arm of the state cannot constitute a person under  1983 because it is a sovereign entity