Dilemma:
Member wants to run for president (and would be a really good candidate) but they have a poor GPA. They only have a poor GPA because they tried to remain an involved member while balancing a a difficult time consuming major, and family problems. To be president a previous E-board position is required, and because of the poor GPA they don't fulfill that requirement. The person running against them had an E-board position, but they did a poor job on a relatively easy position. They are the only person running against them.
Verdict:
Based on rule based thinking, I think the position should be given to the previous member of the E-board. The poor GPA candidate does not fulfill two of the requirements: minimum GPA, and previous position on the E-board, making it difficult to really know their potential. Also, they use their GPA as a reason for why they did not become a part of the E-board, but if they didn't care enough then to fight for their spot regardless of their GPA how do we know that they care enough now to be president? Besides that, the fact that they weren't able to balance school, family, and the organization in the past as a regular member is an indicator for disaster. The previous member of the E-board may have not been very good at their current position but that could be due to fact that they did not have enough room to show what they could really do. Given more freedom may encourage greatness. This dilemma is also an example of justice vs. mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment