Under the Auspice of legality and mass appeal [Revisited]
It is especially relevant for any institution with aims as great as making any change, significant or not, to maintain a thriving, diverse, and evolving leadership. I say this because too often it happens that a certain "school" or sect finds itself filling many or most positions of influence and thereby sees it as a divinely or self given mandate to maintain such thinking and ways of operation. The downside of this being the exclusion of other schools of thought, and the participants and power players contained, from holding such positions of power and influence. Under the assumption that said sect maintaining power is in fact maximizing its attention to effectiveness and democracy and ability to Fuck Shit Up (FSU), and under the event that new positions become held by individuals from said sect, let it be said that it thus must also be under the event that said seats are held because the individuals were the best and not because they were from said sect.
In the opposite case, where individuals hold seats not because they were of the highest caliber, but because they hold membership to said school of thought, let it be known that the institution is headed for failure; its goals unattainable, mission unaccomplishable, nature unobservable. As members from excluded schools of thought spread out and look elsewhere, might it be that one should follow them, and not said institution, in the never ending plight to FSU?