That seems like a bit of an ad antiquitatem argument. Social traditions have evolved a lot since then, especially at progressive universities like USYD, and I doubt you'll find too many people who are disinclined to vote for somebody just because of their gender.
Building on that idea, the chances of women's issues being ignored, even in the case of a predominantly male board, would be extremely slim. Like I said, USYD is very socially progressive and the people who are elected into office, be they men or women, would reflect those views. And additionally, board directors are ultimately answerable to the people that they represent, so in the unlikely case that women's issues are being ignored, there would undoubtedly be backlash both from the existing women's groups on campus, and voters when election time comes along.
I do agree that there is a case to be made for equal representation; while any informed and sympathetic board would be able to operate in the interests of everybody, irrespective of whether they are from diverse backgrounds or not, many people seem to have trouble accepting that, so a watered down version of AA might be acceptable in order to appease them. As the current rules stand, there's nothing to prevent a predominantly female board, so we can have the exact same situation that AA is trying to prevent except with the gender roles reversed. Which is why if they really wanted to push this idea, then they should at least introduce a similar AA clause for male-identifying students as well.
But even then, you still have the capacity for perfectly able candidates to be excluded for unfair circumstances beyond their control. Georg seemed like one of the better candidates, and if I were Shannen I'd be feeling very guilty for riding the gravy train into office at his expense.
.
