Should the training of nonprofit board members be restricted to "policy versus the social issues of governance"? And is teaching so-called "woke" material "agenda-driven" and just "cultural experiments"?
So first we must answer the question, are boards at all being trained? I of course would truly hope that even the fundamentals behind understanding board roles and responsibilities, process, and decision-making would indeed be "taught". Individuals do not inherently, within their DNA, naturally understand or have experience with these matters. On-the-job training can certainly be one learning source but the time to learn is limited so formal training must occur for all kinds of reasons that affect both efficiency and effectiveness.
That said, there is on-going and perhaps heightened debate over what training should constitute beyond the fundamentals of governing. For instance, in Texas, the school boards are struggling with what content is "appropriate" versus inherently biased (by either side). There's the question of "woke" training - the label applied to actually in the end lessen un-recognized or implicit bias which can indeed affect big decisions. As noted in a Gilmer Mirror article, all kinds of social issues are being brought into the board room while less acknowledge, decisions are being made based on personal "biases" versus a full understanding of the subjects. But training on the subjects is viewed as biased. So what to do?
Bottom line, I believe that effective decision-making is that which is fully informed understanding both the facts and the opinions. Isn't this who we are within a democracy?
Feel free to check-out the Gilmer Mirror article referenced earlier. Funny enough, the initial focus of this article is not actually whether training should be conducted but whether those conducting training should not be a convicted felon. Funny.