The Associated Students at UCSD recently won a free registration waiver worth $170 to a national conference in Washington, D.C. As a result, a delegation of UCSD students will be attending the United States Student Association-hosted National Grassroots Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C., to discuss current legislative issues concerning education.

But instead of compiling a group of individuals that accurately represents the demographic and racial background of UCSD, the USAA guidelines have set specific standards for the envoy, requirements that cater much more to the ideal parameters of what constitutes diversity rather than the ideal candidates qualified to generate discussion.

There are specific rules as to whom the A.S. Council will send to cash in on the waiver. UCSD’s population falls in between the 20,501- and 30,500-student category, which, according to the USSA guidelines, means that they strongly suggest delegation should consist of 10 people — four women, one of whom is of color; two persons of color; one “”queer of color;”” and one student who is either not of a typical college age, disabled, a veteran or international.

UCSD’s student body isn’t 40 percent women, it’s much more like 50 percent. The school isn’t 10 percent gay and of color, (the rampant homophobia on campus prevents an accurate number from being available) and neither is it 10 percent disabled, international or veteran.

This isn’t to say that the group sent to represent UCSD should be directly proportional to race or gender statistics, although that would be more logical than conforming to some abstract assertions made regarding what would form the most politically correct collection of individuals. Doubtless, the best delegation would be formed of students who were the most informed about legislative issues concerning education.

There shouldn’t be background quotas on representatives for a delegation intended to speak for an entire student body. Enforcing standards of heritage, race, sexual orientation, gender or otherwise does not ensure that those representatives will be necessarily qualified to participate in the D.C. forum. This is neither an argument for or against affirmative action, nor is it an accusation of racial profiling. Rather, it is the simple observation that creating quotas in order to ensure diversity is completely counterproductive in an attempt to represent a given group.

The purpose of the USSA conference is not to gather a collection of diverse individuals, but rather to learn about how to improve education at the university level. Certainly, minority rights and issues should be discussed, and the people most apt to discuss them would probably be minorities. But the people most apt to contribute to a debate on legislative change should not be expected to adhere to standards that have nothing to do with their ambition to invoke change.

It would be great if the group that traveled to the USSA conference were diverse and varied. It would be wonderful if they spanned a number of demographic categories and represented different classes, races, backgrounds and ideologies. But those should be secondary considerations at most.

Instead of using race and gender as primary requirements, the USSA should ask for students who stand to gain the most from the trip. It should be a group that most accurately represents its student body. And more than anything else, it should consist of students who are capable of creating change. Demanding that the A.S. Council provide a certain number of characteristics in its make-up does nothing to create change; it only generates a false image of its campus and inhibits an honest discussion of how to make things better.