Hi Ethan:
First off, thank you for taking the time to reach out to me about the work I am doing on the Associated
Students, and addressing an extremely important topic that is prevalent especially with the rhetoric
that is happening across America.
Overarching Theme (tl;dr): Many candidates run campaigns about accessibility and A.S. as a whole
preaches transparency and accessibility, but in the end… lack of a better term… A.S. keeps BUILDING
WALLS in order to keep people out of Executive Positions on The Associated Students. I strongly
believe that a person with a 2.3 and a person with a 2.5 should be allowed the opportunity to have
access to a position on the Executive Branch of the A.S. A.S. is not the police of students. We need to
let go of the status quo.
In my meeting this last week with former Interim VCSA Drew Calandrella asked me, “What is the status
quo? How can we better?” Over the last two weeks, I have been attempting to pass a bill titled, “The
A.S. Accessibility And Opportunity Act 2019.” To understand the importance of this Legislation, let me
give you a bit of history on this piece of Legislation.
This amendment was passed in 2009, according to research I have done from past Councils. With this
being prior to the 2010 Compton Cookout (which was an incipient that shook the entire campus), you
could probably imagine the campus climate of the campus of the time. Political moves to keep people
out of running for A.S. were imposed in the A.S. Constitution and were passed. Fast-Forward to my
first year on A.S. Council in 2014. After learning about what happened, and during that time when the
Black Lives Matter movement swept across America, a couple Senators, including myself, and some
AVP’s sponsored a Bill that proposed to change the A.S. Constitution from:
Originally:
Section 2. Eligibility
The Officers shall be members of the ASUCSD and shall not hold any other voting position on the
Council. The Officers shall have no less than a 2.5 cumulative grade point average.
Proposed Change:
Section 2. Eligibility
The Officers shall be members of the ASUCSD and shall not hold any other voting position on the
Council. The Officers shall have no less than a 2.0 cumulative grade point average.
After much debate, this ended up passing on Council Floor, but was not ratified by the College
Councils. It failed with a 3/6 ratification. The same piece of legislation went up on the table again in
2016. It got the majority but not the 3/4 threshold in order for it to be ratified by the College Councils.
Each time, it has been mainly College Senators putting a block on this piece of legislation. FastForward to 2019. I am back on Senate after returning to UCSD. I had taken the last 3 years off to work
in corporate America, becoming Founder and President of my first company, and getting real world
experience before finishing school. I spent last year at another UC and University, and then returned
to UC San Diego this last Fall. Upon returning to A.S. through an appointment for a position that I did
not even apply for (**first red flag**) I read many of the candidate statements from the prior election,
in order to see whom I would be working with. I learned that many had run unopposed, but many
campaigned for more accessibility and transparency with A.S. In order to keep that theme, I decided,

 being the new Senator with probably the most institutional knowledge, to do a full audit of the
Associated Students which brought me to rewriting our Standing Rules and re-evaluating the relevancy
of our Constitution. Going through 140 pages of the ASUCSD Standing Rules and The ASUCSD
Constitution, I came across many discrepancies, and began to propose changes.
Why I proposed this bill?
Coming from years of debates over this specific issue, I knew the arguments for and against. This year,
I decided to propose, instead of a 2.0, a 2.25 as a compromise between a 2.0 and a 2.5. Here are my
reasons to propose:
1. What qualifies an individual to be the best leader?
I am a firm believer in that a number completely takes the intersectionality out of a person. I have
spent 2.5 years at UCSD from 2013-2016 and again in 2018. I have worked with many student leaders
from across the campus, from various organizations, to working with Angel Investors, and C-Level
Corporates in a San Francisco, CA. I believe that their GPA is NOT an indicator on how well someone
can lead an organization. It is also no secret that many CEOs and leaders across the nation did not
finish college, or had different avenues to reach their success. I think it is wrong for A.S. to limit those
who individually believe they have the leadership qualities in order to run an organization.
2. Discrepancies when Looking at other prestigious Universities.
After knowing the dark past of this line in the Constitution, the argument since 2009 has transformed
into 2015 was that since we are UCSD we pride ourselves in academia, and so therefore we should
keep our high academic standards. But when you look at other places that are either at our academic
achievement level or higher, you learn that academia is not the reason for keeping that barrier.
First example, UC Berkeley. Cal does not even have a GPA requirement in their Constitution. It just
states:

 So as long as you are a registered student, taking classes, ASUC believes that you are capable enough
to try and be a leader of campus.
Next example, UCLA. UCLA has their GPA requirement at a 2.0, along with a registered student and
taking classes.

 Final example, UCSB which is a little lower in ranking than UCSD. They have a GPA requirement at a 2.0
and if you drop below that, you can appeal to the J-Board for they understand extenuating
circumstances.

So when looking at these comparisons with other UC’s it was more concrete the rumors I have heard,
that UCSD is institutionalizing the oppression of marginalized communities and the ASUCSD is doing
nothing to help undo that.
3. Past Candidates have had to drop out or cannot run… were they not qualified?
I have served over my time at UCSD on three very different A.S. Councils / Senates, with the 2018-19
class being my fourth Senate. I have run and been involved with 3 very hectic election campaigns.
Over my time, I have watched many candidates not even be able to begin or drop out because of this
issue. In 2015, a friend of mine who was a Campus-Wide Senator wanted to run for Exec. She had
received the most amount of votes out of all the Campus-Wide Senators in 2014. That was when there
were 8 Campus-Wide Senators and 19 of us ran against each other for 8 spots. She could not run in
2015 for an Exec position at the time because she had a 2.4 GPA. I have seen other VPCA candidates in
the following years having to withdraw midway rom the elections because of their GPA being at a 2.3
or 2.2, and I knew that they were the best for that position. On the personal side, I dropped out of the
presidential election race in 2015 because my GPA was at a 2.3. Since then I have run various
companies and teams of people, and my GPA was not a factor in how well one can lead. When it came
to seeing who was not allowed to run, I began to notice a trend that many of these individuals were
from marginalized communities and so I began the research.
3. Shutting Out Marginalized Communities and Transfers.
President Gomez made the comment during one of the debates last week that we should not correlate
lower GPA’s with marginalized communities. I am sad to say, she did not do her research for the
statistics and numbers are against her statement. I spoke with current VCSA VCSA Alysson Satterlund
and my own Warren Provost Emily Roxworthy about this topic before I presented the legislation.
When looking at the numbers when it came to graduation classes, more students on average who
represented marginalized communities made up more of the population of students who had a GPA

 between 2.0-2.49. The data does not take into consideration the fluctuations between your years as
well because we all know some quarters we do better than others. For example you could spend most
of your undergraduate career at a 2.3 but then your last quarters take the easiest classes possible, and
that would boost your GPA to get you into the next bracket. Hypothetically speaking, this rule in The
Constitution potentially shuts out over 8000 students from A.S. Exec. For if you take the total sum of
the people within a 2.0-2.99 and multiply by 4 classes. That is more people that actually vote in the
A.S. Elections. You can say that taking the two columns is not fair but I would say the same thing. A
student with a 2.6 GPA or a 2.3 GPA or even a 2.2 GPA should be allowed to run for an Exec position.

The average for Pacific Islander was a 2.9

 Transfers are at a disadvantage as well because, your first 60-100 credits GPA are not taken into
consideration when you transfer to UCSD. When you transfer to UCSD, you pretty much start over.

 This is not the case at other campuses because I went to a different UC, and a CSU last year, and I had
different GPA’s at both universities. This again shows that the most people affected by this line in the
Constitution are those underrepresented marginalized groups on campus.

4. Studies show that peoples GPA’s have proven to get better when they are involved.
One of my friends that I ran for A.S. with who became a Senator would always tell me that when she
finally got out of her dorm room and got involved on campus, her GPA got better. Studies have shown
exactly that. Senator Milledge presented to me an article backing that up. (I have attached the article
to the email). I do not believe that A.S. should be the police on who can get involved and who cannot.
We do not know everyone’s story and being a center for open mindedness and creation of ideas, I am
again firmly against actively shutting people out.
5. UCSD is about experiences, these are the things students remember
Throughout my time at UCSD, I have met and maintained friends with many alumni throughout the
years. I have hired many UCSD alumni for my companies, and have worked with them constantly. We
do not have the same sense of pride as they do at Cal or UCLA, but what we do have here are
experiences. Years from now, even two years from now, no one will talk about the grade they got in a
class, or what they got on tests. They remember the people, the experiences, the chances they got to
change the world or the community they were in. A.S. should not be the dictator to take those
experiences away from anyone. A person with a 2.4 GPA should have accessibility to the same
experiences as a person with a 2.5 GPA.
6. Most of the real world does not care about the GPA
Coming from Corporate America these last 3 year, I have learned that companies do not ask for your
GPA. Of course, even higher education and big firms might, but as a whole, companies are not looking
at academia. You learn too, that if they are, those companies are not successful. When recruiters
come, they look at an individual’s soft skills, and how they interact with others or work in a team.
People with 4.0 GPA’s are constantly by passed because they do not know how to carry a conversation
or interact with others. Many people from lower ranked schools get the jobs sometimes more often
than UC graduates because they have learned the soft skills needed to get them the job. Competition
is so much harder these days, and it is not about the GPA that sets one apart. They look at one’s
ability to talk and to communicate. They look for the ones that can learn fast, are easy to work with

 and have the right attitude. Over my experiences on A.S., it taught me the soft skills which helped me
later earn my first investor. I would never want to be the person to take that opportunity away from
someone else to learn and refine their skills for the real world. We come to college to fully equip us to
take on the world and land us a job. Our GPA is not a factor on getting a job, and so A.S. should have a
GPA requirement to allow students to work for the student body.
7. Is it really “Too Much Work”
What then is too much work? We could potentially say that about everything in life. But how is A.S.
the deciding factor on what a student wants to do with their time. I learned through my career that
the things I learned in the classroom were somewhat a waste of time. I learned all my life skills
through my experiences. If an individual wants to pursue their goals, they should be allowed to.
Getting a good GPA may not be someone’s goals. The argument that we are students first was brought
up. I would argue that life is all about being a student whether you are in the classroom or in the real
world. We should never stop learning. So when a senator said we are doing students a disservice by
lowering the GPA, I had to completely disagree with that statement for who are we to figure out what
should be a priority in other students lives. Learning and being a student happens inside AND OUTSIDE
of the classroom. If you are just learning in the classroom, you are not getting the holistic experience
that UCSD promises you when you accept their admission.
8. Overall, so much apathy and not enough accessibility, many ran on platforms of accessibility for
marginalized communities… STOP BUILDING WALLS
There has been a trend of not trusting A.S. and this lack of accessibility is creating an elitist atmosphere
surrounding the organization. As I mentioned before… What is the status quo. I believe A.S. is stuck in
the status quo and what I have proposed with this bill is not the cure all, but I believe this organization
needs a huge overhaul and more engagement from the student body in order to make it more relevant
to students. We need to STOP BUILDING WALLS and shutting potentially 8,000 people from
experiences of leadership. Thinking that since this is what was done in the past, it is ok for the present
is a terrible mentality and I am scared for our future generations if us leaders think like that. I believe
that there needs to be a change, and other leaders have supported that. I have been a part of the
organization as an insider and outsider, and there continues to be many issues which keep students
kept out of the table. Senator Milledge has asked me to attach a statement from him that digs into
this issue further. I am disappointed on how Council handled this issue, and shutting down the
conversation so that they could go home was disgusting to me.
What I hoped it would accomplish if it had passed?
Mainly, if it would have passed, I would have hoped that it would bring more accessibility to all
students. I would have hope to see the trend of apathy slowly disappear and get more students
engaged in the conversation. Looking at the other UC’s I’ve been to, who do not have such a high GPA
requirement, their student government is relevant and actually creating positive productive changes to
their campuses. They are held to a standard of leadership which is respected and taken seriously. I
believe that ASUCSD can achieve that one day, and this could have been a step in that direction. I
know it is not the cure all but every year, when I keep hearing candidates preach about accessibility,
and do nothing about it, I and I know other students do as well, get more and more jaded which leads
to more and more apathy. Even when I was giving Senate, statistic after static of research, they knew
they did not want to hear it, and a Call to Question was called. It was very disappointing.

 In closing, I will continue my work, auditing the Associated Students, and there are so many issues that
need addressing. It will be a tough fight because A.S. is so entrenched in its way. A.S. of 2017 spent an
entire year attempting to re-write the ASUCSD standing rules, and did not pass any new legislation or
changes. In one weekend I was able to do what they tried to do for an entire year, and took on the
project of rewriting them so they actually make sense which would hopefully encourage more
engagement from the student body. I have taken on as my mission to align and create a set of
standing rules that make sense and provide a voice for every student, every year. I know that no
organization is perfect, but we owe it to the student body to be accountable in our actions and provide
more opportunities to succeed. We need to let go of the status quo.
I hope you get a better understanding, and have enough information to write a thorough piece about
this issue. Please let me know if you have further questions or comments. I have also included Senator
Milledge’s statement which he asked me to include as well. Also, I have attached a PDF transcript of
this email as well for I know it was a lot of information. Thanks again for your time.
Best,
Senator Joey Giltner