A young musician, passionate and deeply woven into the fabric of his university’s music club, found himself unexpectedly cast aside despite years of dedication and quiet sacrifices. His contributions, born from a genuine love for the art and a desire to uplift the club, were suddenly overshadowed by the shifting tides of friendship and power.
When a new president, entangled in fractured alliances, took charge, the harmony he once cherished shattered. Branded as “problematic” and ousted without warning, he faced the harsh reality of exclusion in a world where loyalty and politics often drown out talent and heart.
AITA for refusing to help out my old music club after they kicked me out?
As renowned researcher Dr. Brené Brown explains, “Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.”
The OP’s situation is a classic conflict between professional boundaries and perceived loyalty or community obligation. The OP leveraged his established industry contacts and experience to provide significant, uncompensated value to the club under the previous board’s tenure. When the new president, Emma, who was part of a pre-existing social conflict, removed the OP, this fundamentally changed the terms of his involvement. His decision to sever ties with his contacts after being ousted was a necessary step to maintain his professional reputation and avoid undermining his prior arrangement, especially when the new board was hostile.
The pressure from current club members, even friends, highlights a common issue where community members blur the line between the organization’s needs and the specific actions of its leadership. The OP is not punishing the general membership; he is asserting professional autonomy after being dismissed. His initial decision to help was conditional on his membership and relationship with the prior administration. The current board’s attempt to leverage the club’s dependency on his network, while framing it as an appeal to the general membership, is an attempt at emotional coercion.
The OP’s actions were appropriate given the circumstances; he protected his professional assets after being ejected from the environment where they were being shared. For future situations, the OP should focus on clear, documented agreements regarding external contributions. If he chooses to re-engage, it must be under a formalized structure where the value he provides is acknowledged and compensated, ensuring the club leadership cannot unilaterally revoke his position and still expect his resource provision.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The original poster (OP) feels conflicted because the music club, after removing him and his connections, is now demanding his continued, uncompensated assistance to avoid significant financial and logistical problems. His actions—withdrawing his established professional support after being removed by the new leadership—are seen by some club members as unfair punishment affecting their activities, which causes the OP to question his own decision.
Is the OP justified in maintaining professional boundaries and refusing to provide essential, uncompensated resources to an organization that dismissed him, or does the duty to support fellow musicians and club members outweigh the personal slight from the leadership?
