I get emails periodically asking for recommendations for appointment to the Board of Trustees. No doubt I am being asked for no better reason than that I am a (very) modest annual donor to the College. I assume that recommendations come from many quarters, are screened by a committee of the Board, and ultimately some three or four persons (or such number as may be required to fill whatever vacancies may exist) are put forward for formal acceptance by the Board. There may be a bit of lobbying in that process, and no doubt some are courted and some rejected. By the time the recommendations get to the entirety of the Board it is a fait accompli.
I have never heard of an organized effort by alums to place on the Board an advocate for a particular policy. That wouldn’t be such a bad thing, in my opinion. Someone who has reason and eloquence on his side should have a shot at this university of all others at getting a hearing and a thoughtful consideration on the merits of a disputed policy. Yet in the end a Board is a little democracy in which every member of it gets a vote. The maverick will have to bring over a majority to his side. In fact I believe it is a pretty rare case in which unanimity is not achieved.
Certainly the Trustees voted unanimously once upon a time to take perhaps the single most controversial action ever taken by the College - withdrawal from varsity sports. That was either a Board with guts and vision or it was one that could not resist the arguments and eloquence of Robert Maynard Hutchins.