THE CREDO WHEN THE RULES ARE NOT ENOUGH
A Reflection on Governance, Change and the Character of Upsilon
In chairing board meetings, I have valued the discipline of parliamentary procedure. It gives members a fair opportunity to speak, keeps the discussion moving, and provides a way to reach a decision even when agreement is difficult.
Yet a properly conducted vote does not settle every concern. A proposal may be in order, fall within the bylaws, and command a majority, while still leaving a question about its consequences for the fraternity.
My recent encounters with artificial intelligence have brought me back to that familiar difficulty. We have increasingly capable tools for gathering information and preparing arguments. What should guide us when the information is available, the procedure is clear, and reasonable brothers still disagree about what ought to be done?
Constitutions and bylaws are the starting point. They establish authority, duties, and procedure. Precedent matters too. Institutional memory can protect an organization from repeating mistakes, while those who have lived through earlier disputes may recognize consequences that others have not yet considered.
But a clause may permit more than one reasonable interpretation. An earlier decision may have answered a problem quite different from the one now before us. Sometimes the rules leave room for discretion, and those entrusted with that discretion must explain why their proposed course deserves support.
It is in that space that I find myself returning to the Credo.
Most of us first encountered its words as neophytes. We memorized and recited them. Over the years, however, familiar words can become part of ceremony without receiving much further thought. We remember what to say, but do we consider what those words ask of us during an uncomfortable disagreement?
The Credo’s regard for sincere fellowship, its commitment to service, and its call to set aside self-interest for a greater good have practical implications. They ask something of us when our preferred proposal faces opposition, when a friend’s position deserves scrutiny, or when preserving harmony would be easier than raising a necessary concern.
I do not suggest that the Credo should become another set of bylaws. Nor should anyone invoke it as permission to disregard an inconvenient rule. Members remain entitled to the protections of the constitution and to fair procedure. A claim of good intentions cannot excuse denying them those protections.
The Credo helps us consider how we exercise the authority the rules give us. It reminds us of the purposes that authority should serve.
Consider a controversial measure before the body. It is constitutionally permissible. There is precedent for it. A majority supports it, and it offers a convenient solution to an immediate problem.
Those are substantial arguments. They still leave matters worth examining. Who will bear the consequences? Have those affected been heard? Will an exception made today become an expectation tomorrow? Can we explain the decision fairly to brothers who opposed it?
A majority may ultimately decide to proceed. Listening does not oblige it to surrender its judgment. But the quality of that listening can affect whether the decision earns lasting confidence or leaves resentment that outlives the original dispute.
AI can assist with some of the preparation. It can help search records, compare provisions, and organize competing arguments. Its output needs checking, especially when it attributes a statement to an old document or presents an interpretation with unwarranted confidence.
Even an accurate account cannot remove our responsibility. A summary may tell us what happened in an earlier controversy. Deciding whether that experience should govern the present case requires an understanding of circumstances, relationships, and obligations that we must bring to the discussion ourselves.
The temptation to defer judgment is older than these tools. We have deferred to seniority, popularity, personal loyalty, and the confidence of a persuasive speaker. An answer delivered instantly in polished language offers another occasion to accept a conclusion before examining it.
For me, the useful response is to ask better questions and remain willing to check the answers.
This matters in a fraternity whose members experience it across different generations. Residents face the demands of their present university life. Alumni carry memories of the fraternity as they knew it. Officers must address the problem before them, often under pressure to act quickly.
Each perspective contributes something. Each can also miss something.
An alumnus may mistake a familiar practice for an indispensable principle. A resident may see clearly why a practice no longer works but underestimate what others fear losing. An officer may reasonably seek a prompt resolution while overlooking the time members need to understand and accept it.
The discussion becomes more useful when we make room for those differences without immediately questioning one another’s loyalty.
Upsilon has changed over the decades. It will continue to change. The difficult work is deciding what deserves preservation and what can be reconsidered.
Before abandoning an old convention, we should understand why it existed. Before defending it, we should be able to explain what purpose it still serves. The same scrutiny belongs to a proposed reform. Being new does not make it sound; being unfamiliar does not make it wrong.
Minority objections deserve a hearing on their merits. Some will prove unpersuasive. Others may expose a weakness that enthusiasm has concealed. We lose something when we treat every objection as obstruction, just as we do when dissent becomes an excuse to prevent any decision at all.
The Credo cannot resolve each of these tensions for us. It can remind us how much care we owe one another while working through them.
Fraternity disputes can draw in batch loyalties, pride, and old grievances. After a while, members may be arguing over more than the proposal on the table. A procedural victory can then leave the fraternity with a problem larger than the one it set out to solve.
Our commitment to fellowship should matter at precisely that point. It asks whether we have represented an opposing view honestly, whether we have allowed disagreement to become personal, and whether we are prepared to continue working with brothers whose judgment differs from our own.
None of this requires unanimity. Decisions must be made, and officers must be able to carry out their duties. But brothers who lose a vote should have reason to believe they received a fair hearing and remain respected members of the same fraternity.
We cannot anticipate every dispute future Fellows will face. Their tools will differ from ours. Their university experience may be difficult for us to imagine. They will have to exercise their own judgment, including about practices we now take for granted.
What we can leave them is a record of responsible conduct: decisions explained, commitments honored, objections heard, and mistakes acknowledged when they become apparent. Such habits give substance to the principles we recite.
My interest in AI has made me think again about these obligations. The tools may improve our preparation, but the decisions will still be made in our names and carried into the fraternity’s history.
Before a difficult vote, I would want us to consider both the immediate problem and the example our decision will leave. We inherited Upsilon through the efforts of brothers before us. Others will inherit what we do with it.
That is why I believe the Credo deserves a place in our deliberations as well as our ceremonies. Its meaning becomes clearer when observing it asks us to listen longer, reconsider a favored position, or accept responsibility for a difficult choice.
What kind of Upsilon do we intend to leave behind?
— Edwin O. Paña ’69
“We Gather Light to Scatter”
About the Author
Edwin O. Paña ’69 served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Upsilon Sigma Phi North America Inc. (USPNA) for a total of 12 years across five terms.
Reflections may be shared beyond this page.
