What I am seeing in this scenario is that the group in total was okay and felt comfortable with Rueben taking the lead and making the decision for the open spot on the student senate based on his experience within the foundation and his past decisions.

The group went ahead and presented Rueben with candidates to chose from; however, Rueben went rouge and selected someone on his own who he felt encompassed the idea he wanted within the senate. This created negative feedback within the group.

The group and college is described as being primarily white, upper to middle class and in the Midwest. Jameela did not check any of those boxes. She came from an Urban area, first generation in her family to go to college and was interested in diverse communities such as Women and LGBTQ issues.

I feel that the group felt they were in their rights to still be in the decision making process by coming together and selecting potential candidates and Rueben completely disregarded that by going with his own selection, which he felt was right as it would bring diversity to the group.

The moral issue I notice is that the overall group which is made up of middle-class caucasian students is having an issue with having a person of color on the board. The reason I came to that decision is because historically they mention that they at times are lenient on the guidelines of having someone override the process to select new members for the team. Everyone seemed to in agreeance that Reuben was a great candidate to make the decision on his own. Reuben selected a candidate that he found social interests in diversity by expressing their involvement in other programs related to diversity. The coalition members also gave Reuben some options but those were not the people he had choose. His choice was Jameela because he was interested in the fact that she was a generational first to go to school, she had interest in women's studies and the LGBTQ committee, and she stated that she wasn't afraid of challenges. I feel like that there may be some closeted angst against diversity even though they are seated on the board. I feel like maybe they feel like having a person of color on the board may be uncomfortable to them as the majority are middle class white kids. For me I think that Reuben was taking part in deontological ethics. This means, "believe that we ought to base our choices on our duty to follow universal truths that we discover through our intuition or reason." (Hackman and Johnson). I feel that Reuben felt that he was doing the right thing based on what his firm beliefs are for their group. He followed through thinking it was the right decision.