Dilemma:
You are part of an organization who is planning an event at a bar. You know that alcohol will be accessible to underage members, but there could be serious consequences to your organization if they are caught. Do you enforce a rule to stop underage drinking because it is dangerous and against the law? Or do you let it go because it is being done in a controlled environment and things have always been done this way?
Our Solution:
Individual vs. Community and Truth vs. Loyal
We would have IDs checked at the door of the bar, and if you're under 21, you get X's on your hands. This ensures that your organization isn't liable for any underage drinking that takes place, but it still allows these people to come to the event and take responsibility for their own actions. Our solution is primarily rule-based thinking because, in this situation, following the law is most important in protecting the organization and all the people that come to the event.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great solution to this problem! Underage drinking is always a tricky situation because I think a lot of people think that because they are in college now, and the event for their student organization is at a bar, they feel entitled to drink, whether they are of age or not. Having the bar check IDs at the bar protects your organization, as well as the bar, from getting in trouble and being liable. I think controlling underage drinking on a large scale such as this is very difficult and situations should be dealt with on an individual basis. As long as you take the proper precautions to ensure your organization does not get in trouble with the university or the law, it is up to the members to be smart about their actions.
This was our problem :). I think you guys created a great solution to this dilemma. It is always hard to enforce something that is so widely unpopular, but it is the right thing to do when you are in a position of power and responsible for others. Putting the responsibility into the member's hands is a good idea because you are making the right decision and you can only extend your authority so far.
I also think your group came up with a good solution to a very tricky ethical dilemma. By having the event at a third-party vendor (a bar), and by having the bar's security staff check IDs at the door, you are minimizing the liability of the organization, which is a good thing to do, especially when there is alcohol present at the event. At the same time, it also minimizes the liability of the bar, which is good for them. So, it is a win-win situation for both the organization and the bar. In my opinion, the organization should hold its members accountable for their actions, but, at the same time, it cannot and should not be hunting down underage members who consume alcohol. So, you put the responsibility on the organization's members to make the right decisions, no matter how tough they may be, because, as Nicole said, you can only extend your authority so far. If members of the organization do break any laws and/or bylaws of the organization, then, as Hannah stated, they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Great solution! In college we are constantly faced with tough decisions, especially underaged drinking. Being a leader of that org. would force you to make these decisions despite the opinion of some members. One must be responsible for his/her actions, and this is a great way to hold members accountable.
I think your group came up with a very logical solution to this very common dilemma. Speaking from experiences, events I have planned for groups I am involved in often are held in places where alcohol is present (restaurants, bars, etc.). Since underage drinking is against the law, and often a HUGE risk management issue for groups, I think your decision to follow rule-based thinking is the smartest choice here. There is no way for you to personally control the issue of underage drinking, so I think it is good that you specified that you would have the bar check IDs, taking the liability away from the organization itself (for the most part). I also think it was good that you decided to include that members are still responsible for their actions, should they choose to go around these barriers and break the law/rules anyway. Good job on mapping out a good, achievable solution to a sticky situation that many of our groups face!
Post a Comment