Trevor asked:

In the sport of sailing, we have an appeal procedure run by the Royal Yachting Association. I am the
chairman of the Appeals Committee. We have a rule in racing that an entry to a race can be rejected
or cancelled providing the organizers 'state the reason for doing so'. We are debating the question as
to whether a reason has to be reasonable. Can you help?

============

As I understand the 'issue' here, it seems to me that you are wondering what criteria should be in
place to determine if a reason counts as a good' or acceptable reason. On the surface, it seems like a
reason for rejecting an entry could be just about anything. The rule in place only says that a reason
must be given and does not stipulate the content of the reason. So, we might imagine for argument's
sake that a reason plainly stated like, 'We dislike green-eyed people, and prohibit them from racing,'
could be offered to cancel an entry. Yet such a reason might be considered 'unreasonable' as it is
arbitrary. When offered this reason we can ask the question, 'Why?' Indeed, how would one explain
why? 'Well, these people are disagreeable and nobody likes them.' But, why? 'They have green
eyes.' But why is that disagreeable? 'It is simply how we feel.' But why is that grounds for rejecting an
entry? 'Because it is how we feel.' But, why is that grounds for rejection (and not anything else)? 'It is
— because we say so.' Arbitrary reasons have the character of being unjustifiable they cannot
withstand testing (why questions). Often, they are justified ultimately on the very lacking grounds of
'just because.'

Acceptable, non-arbitrary reasons have some justification. These reasons are 'reasonable' in the very
least, they provide us with grounds for a real debate. For instance, we might imagine that an entry is
rejected for the reason that the crew members are all seven years old, and the association prohibits
such an entry. The association gives the reason that unsupervised minors are not permitted to enter
races. When asked why this is so, the association may claim that such a situation represents a safety
hazard. When asked why, the association may make reference to the risks involved in the sport and
that minors cannot legally assume these risks. Now, there might be an argument about the merits of
these particular seven year-olds involved, or the legality involved, but, ultimately, the association has
provided a non-arbitrary reason for its decision.

The issue then is whether or not the Royal Yachting Association wishes to deny entries for races with
arbitrary reasons or with justifiable reasons. A private club or association might be within its rights to
utilize arbitrary reasons for rejecting applications, but then would face fairly reasonable criticism,
perhaps even legal action for discrimination (unjustified bias against the green-eyed, for example). It
seems to me that although the language of the charter is vague and open to this sort of interpretation,
it is hard to imagine that anyone in your association would want to act upon this sort of interpretation.
It would be best to assume that the reasons the association should provide must be non-arbitrary and
justifiable (or, as you put it, reasonable reasons).

Maureen Eckert

I think you will find that in the rather loose way in which rules like these are framed, the intention is to
put off an applicant in the nicest (and most logical) way, and in this respect the demand is certainly for
a 'reasonable' excuse. In essence, of course, it is wholly arbitrary. A committee like your's represents
an interest group, and part of your duty is to preserve and protect those interests (providing they are
within the applicable laws). For instance, it would probably not be considered a reasonable rebuff to
an applicant to point to his/ her hairstyle and/ or manner of dress — yet if the rules demand of all
applicant to have crew cuts and to wear a blue and white outfit, then that 'unreasonable' criterion
becomes suddenly eminently reasonable. In most committee work of this kind (at least those of which
I have had experience), a 'reasonable reason' is usually required for most decisions which reject an
application; though in these as in most cases, it is the majority opinion which prevails in the
judgement of what is 'reasonable' under the circumstances. I suppose you're aware that every now
and then a court may overturn one of these 'reasonable' decisions; but this tends to happen more
often in the 'serious' avenues of life, e.g. schools or highly competitive sporting environments.

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney

I'm going to take it that you really are who you say you are... which means you are a) serious about
this, and b) reasonably sophisticated in human relationships. Now, clearly "reasonable" doesn't
merely mean "have a reason", since that could be anything, and very well might be. So I do think that
you have to set some standard, or establish a procedure for setting standards. As I see it you have
several choices.

First, you can set up some meta-rule to this effect: "a reason shall be deemed valid by a majority vote
of the rules committee; there will be one opportunity to appeal a negative ruling within one month [or
whatever] and the ruling from that appeal is final". That's one possibility... reasonable is what a
majority says is reasonable. Period. Why not? You must have thought of that, surely.

Second, you could do the same as the above, basically, and let the chairman have the final say, or
the tie-breaking (if you can have ties) say. I'm in favor of this one, for the reason that the captain of a
ship has the final say, and you are then modeling the committee after a ship. A workable model, it
seems to me, given the nature of your club.

Third, you could take a look at legal definitions of "reasonable". That isn't my field; I have no idea as
to what they might be; but I cannot believe that some lawyer on your committee or in the club could
not find such a definition. Then use that as the definition for your committee.

Well that's it for my ideas... I don't see any point here in going on about different ethical systems, etc.
Arbitrary as it sounds, I'm in favor of the second alternative for your club. Anyway, I hope this helps.

Steven Ravett Brown

It depends on your aims. It is our whim or we don't like you are reasons. But they are not reasonable
in the sense of being fair — and fairness is to be expected by an Appeals Committee just because
such a body is expected to act reasonably or there would be no way of appealing with any sort of
case. And I expect it is your aim to be held in regard.

Rachel Browne