Position paper of those members opposed to the
expansion of Life Membership
Those of us who oppose the expansion of Life Membership, comprising the majority of the working group, are not ignorant of the tremendous contributions of the countless individuals who have tirelessly and selflessly given of themselves in the service of the WSDC since the competition’s inception in 1988. On the contrary, we enthusiastically recognize and thank all of them; without their efforts, the competition would not be what it is today. Moreover, we encourage the continued expression of thanks at every tournament both to those involved in organizing the championships and those whose work behind the scenes makes the WSDC a perennial enterprise.
However, after a lengthy discussion amongst the members of the working group tasked at the AGM of the WSDC Ltd. in Doha to examine this issue, we cannot support the continued expansion of Life Membership as a means of recognizing various individuals’ past and future contributions to the WSDC. Our reasons are twofold:
- Life Membership is an unfeasible institution incapable of meeting its stated aims; and,
- It is an inappropriate honorific inconsistent with the direction and goals of the WSDC.
Feasibility
An honorific like Life Membership must be clearly defined and universally understood, and the system we employ to confer such an honour must be fair and unbiased.
Defining Life Membership
While some proponents of Life Membership felt it relatively uncomplicated for the WSDC community to agree upon whom the honorific should be conferred, those of us who oppose the expansion of Life Membership felt such a determination was anything but; rather, we argued defining Life Membership was fraught with problems.
First, we felt the absence of a clear and prescriptive definition of what constitutes an “exceptional contribution”—the key determinant for conferring the honour—risked the award becoming something of a free-for-all, jeopardizing the connotation of honour, prestige, and especial gratitude for which it was initially designed.
Furthermore, while some proponents (and even opponents) of Life Membership tried to craft criteria by which an exceptional contribution could be judged, no set of criteria was advanced that would not (even by a conservative estimate) apply to at least 40 individuals already—depending upon how one interpreted said criteria.
A majority of members felt this was indicative of a problem with the very institution of Life Membership itself: what constitutes an exceptional contribution is profoundly subjective. For example, while some argued the act of convening the WSDC was not, in and of itself, an exceptional contribution; we argued the act was most certainly an exceptional one, especially in the opinions of the competitors at that championship. Some suggested the exceptional contribution must be made over an extended period of time; we argued such a criterion discriminated against those who may not have had the financial means to attend the WSDC year after year, but who may have made a singular, but not less extraordinary contribution at one championship (i.e., stepping in to host the WSDC on short notice, as has been done on more than one occasion).
Ensuring Fairness
As important as clearly defining Life Membership—which, as we have argued, is nearly impossible—is ensuring the system we employ to confer such an honour is fair and unbiased.
While everyone agreed discussions and decisions surrounding the conferral of Life Membership would have to take place in confidence and among a small group of decision-makers appointed by Council in order to avoid the embarrassing situation where a candidate’s suitability for such an honour was openly discussed and rejected, those of us opposed to the expansion of the honorific argued appointments would therefore be subject to the collective whim of those few individuals serving on the committee at any particular point in time.
However, because the alternative—fully transparent, but possibly humiliating adjudications—were simply not an option, we argued the lack of transparency would lead to real or, at least perceived bias. For example, depending on its composition, a committee may elect to honour more recent contributors to the exclusion of those no longer involved but who may have contributed greatly in the distant past, with little judgment of the comparative merits of their cases. In such instances, the conferral of Life Membership on others could, albeit unwittingly, serve to alienate long-term supporters of the WSDC.
Appropriateness
Although we believe the real and substantive concerns we have raised about the feasibility of Life Membership are reason enough cease further expansion of this honorific, we also believe there is a second, more profound problem attached to the issue. Specifically, we believe the institutionalization of Life Membership is inconsistent with the direction and goals of the WSDC—its incorporation as WSDC Ltd., the dramatic growth of its recent championships, and its push toward a charitable foundation of genuine global reach.
Yes, our organization has always been a close-knit one, and we wish to preserve elements of that closeness as the organization grows and matures. Nevertheless, at the same time, we must recognize global charities capable of attracting large corporate sponsorship and of continued global reach necessarily entail a certain degree of depersonalization and professionalization.
The institution of Life Membership (a staple of parochial charities, like Rotary Clubs and past pupil unions) is unheard of in organizations like the IOC[1], FIFA[2], the CGF[3], and the IRB[4]—organizations on which we explicitly base our rules of eligibility. It is also absent from global, membership-based charities like Amnesty International and Greenpeace, and other organizations geared toward hosting competitions for young people, like the Maths Olympiad.
However, the absence Life Membership in these instances does not mean these organizations do not value those who have contributed greatly to them; rather, global charities geared toward a specific mission—the promotion of mathematics, of human rights, of environmentalism, or even of debate—have no need for such an institution. Unlike organizations whose sole purpose is the involvement of individual members in doing good works, where Life Membership can be used to recognize the most productive among them—literally, those who do quantitatively more good works than their peers—an organization like ours, which is designed to further a specific mission irrespective of who does the furthering, has no need for such a category of recognition.
The WSDC is at a pivotal point in its history—moving away from its parochial past to a much more globalized, dispersed, and necessarily depersonalized future. It is no longer an organization of individuals, but of individual organizations; as such, in addition to it being unfeasible, we believe it would be inappropriate to continue with a system of Life Membership.
Procedural Notes and Next Steps
This does leave us, of course, with one Life Member: our founder, Chris Erskine. Were the members of the WSDC Ltd. to support our call for ceasing the expansion of this honorific, we would suggest Chris Erskine be elevated to the position of Honorary Life President, and the category of Life Membership removed from the charity by-laws.
That said, and notwithstanding our opposition to the expansion of Life Membership, some among us felt there is one additional person who, like Chris Erskine, has been critical to the development of the WSDC and who merits an equivalent form of exceptional recognition.[5] Those of this opinion support further investigation of ways in which this individual could receive the recognition and celebration they deserve; however, again, because we feel Life Membership is an explicitly open-ended institution, we do not believe it is an appropriate means of doing so.
[1] International Olympic Committee
[2] Fédération Internationale de Football Association
[3] Commonwealth Games Federation
[4] International Rugby Board
[5] We have decided not to name this person publicly as we feel that the awarding of an honorific should take place in a confidential, closed committee. However, we feel that those who have been involved in the Championships over the years would have little difficulty identifying this individual.