You actually are a poster worthy of parody but this wasn’t it imo.
Ever read Acuff-Rose, the case in question? Aside from the commercial question -- although we could feasibly consider the OP marketing himself socially -- it's a bit on point here. It's about the claim to fair use under copyright law regarding The 2 Live Crew trying to take on Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman." The artistic differences are stark, as is the case here. Indeed, the Court that ruled on Acuff-Rose might not even find the element of "reasonable [perception]" by the audience necessary here to qualify it for parody and fair use. Thus, my comments above. This might also be why both the professor and I are both correct. Often, in parody, the author can't but poke broader fun at not just the object of its ridicule, but at its audience as a whole. The juridical lines bleed and prevent satire and parody from being neatly distinct, as is the case here where the OP makes fun of his position as a Millennial on the board and the board's treatment of him, something he often bemoans.
Money quotes from the case, bolded and italicized emphasis mine:
We have less difficulty in finding [a critique of the original] in 2 Live Crew's song than the Court of Appeals did,
although having found it we will not take the further step of evaluating its quality. The threshold question when fair use is raised in defense of parody is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived. [n.16]
Whether, going beyond that, parody is in good taste or bad does not and should not matter to fair use. As Justice Holmes explained, "It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [a work], outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke." Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251 (1903) (circus posters have copyright protection); cf. Yankee Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 267, 280 (SDNY 1992) (Leval, J.) ("First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed") (trademark case).
While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies.
It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works. [n.17] (Ed. Note: This is the distinction between satire and parody, as mentioned in the above comment)
My analysis:
Wiki says: "Notably, Justice Souter attached the lyrics of both songs as appendixes to his majority opinion for the Court. As a result, both songs were reproduced in the United States Reports along with the rest of the opinion, and may now be found in every major American law library."
Side by side, the difference is stark, and funny, and telling about the quality of both works.
And that the OP needs his joke explained is sort of sad and telling about the efficacy of his intended use.
