Facing a Difficult Decision
During my freshman year at A&M, I was involved in PREP, which is a business focused freshman leadership organization. At the end of the spring semester, I applied for a leadership position for the following year and I was fortunate enough to be selected.
Before this school year began, all of the executives met up to prepare for the coming recruitment process. During one of our morning meetings, we were informed that our co-chair, the highest position in PREP, was ineligible to perform her duties because her academic standing did not comply with the terms stated in our constitution. The PREP constitution stated that you must have a 2.0 GPA in the semester prior to your appointment as co-chair and the semesters during your term. If you did not meet these requirements you could not serve as the co-chair of PREP.
The constitution’s rules, however, were out of date because they have not been updated since the document was created. It was brought to our attention this summer that we could amend the constitution to make the 2.0 requirement per semester, a cumulative GPA requirement. This would make our current co-chair eligible to fulfill her role throughout the year.
The dilemma with this solution arose when we evaluated ethics and our moral principles. Our group was split into two, half wanting to change the rule to keep our friend and leader, and the other half justifying that it was unethical to change the rule for one person. After much deliberation we came to a conclusion, which seemed to be the best of both worlds.
As PREP staff we decided to create a new role that would be under the co-chair, and keep the current GPA requirements. This would allow our co-chair to take on a new position, because the constitution only stated that she could not fulfill her current position in PREP. This allowed us to keep the leader that was initially elected, and satisfy those who were opposed to amending the constitution.
This experience really helped me develop as a problem solver. Typically, I was a black and white type of thinker who only believed there were two solutions to a problem, right and wrong. When dealing with ethics and feelings, however, right and wrong are much more vague. This situation opened my eyes to a way of thinking that is incredibly more complex. Now, I view the problems that arise in my daily life with a much more open mindset which has proven to be extremely beneficial thus far.
Before this school year began, all of the executives met up to prepare for the coming recruitment process. During one of our morning meetings, we were informed that our co-chair, the highest position in PREP, was ineligible to perform her duties because her academic standing did not comply with the terms stated in our constitution. The PREP constitution stated that you must have a 2.0 GPA in the semester prior to your appointment as co-chair and the semesters during your term. If you did not meet these requirements you could not serve as the co-chair of PREP.
The constitution’s rules, however, were out of date because they have not been updated since the document was created. It was brought to our attention this summer that we could amend the constitution to make the 2.0 requirement per semester, a cumulative GPA requirement. This would make our current co-chair eligible to fulfill her role throughout the year.
The dilemma with this solution arose when we evaluated ethics and our moral principles. Our group was split into two, half wanting to change the rule to keep our friend and leader, and the other half justifying that it was unethical to change the rule for one person. After much deliberation we came to a conclusion, which seemed to be the best of both worlds.
As PREP staff we decided to create a new role that would be under the co-chair, and keep the current GPA requirements. This would allow our co-chair to take on a new position, because the constitution only stated that she could not fulfill her current position in PREP. This allowed us to keep the leader that was initially elected, and satisfy those who were opposed to amending the constitution.
This experience really helped me develop as a problem solver. Typically, I was a black and white type of thinker who only believed there were two solutions to a problem, right and wrong. When dealing with ethics and feelings, however, right and wrong are much more vague. This situation opened my eyes to a way of thinking that is incredibly more complex. Now, I view the problems that arise in my daily life with a much more open mindset which has proven to be extremely beneficial thus far.