The Illusion Of Inclusion: Governance without a voice (#582)

At a public university, decisions do not derive their legitimacy solely from authority.

They derive legitimacy from process.

And process, at its best, reflects something deeper than structure - it reflects trust.

At institutions like the University of California, and within schools such as the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, that trust is meant to be safeguarded by a principle we invoke often, and interrogate too rarely:

Shared governance.

But what happens when decisions of consequence - those that shape identity, direction, and legacy - are made without direct consultation with those most affected?

What happens when shared governance becomes… selective governance?

The Nature of the Decision Matters

Not all decisions are equal.

Routine administrative choices can, and should, be handled efficiently within existing structures.

But conditional philanthropy is not routine.

When a gift includes:

• Naming rights,

• Building timelines, or

• Strategic conditions,

it is no longer just a financial transaction.

It becomes an institutional inflection point.

It defines how a school presents itself to the world.

It signals whose voice carries weight.

It establishes precedents that will echo long after the celebration banners are taken down.

Who Was Consulted?

In such moments, the question is not simply:

Who had the authority to decide?

The more important question is:

Who was consulted?

• Were faculty at large consulted - not just through a small representative committee, but meaningfully?

• Were staff, who will operationalize these decisions, given a voice?

• Were students, whose education and identity are tied to the institution, invited into the conversation?

• Were alumni, who carry its legacy forward, engaged?

Or was consultation limited, quietly, efficiently, to a narrow group, after which the decision was presented as a fait accompli?

The Comfortable Fiction of Representation

One of the most persistent defenses in such situations is this:

The appropriate committees were consulted.

The eight members of the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine Executive Committee reviewed the matter, and they represent the voices of the more than 300 faculty members working in classrooms, clinics, and laboratories throughout the School.

But let us be candid.

Consulting a small group - however thoughtful, however well-intentioned - is not the same as consulting a community.

It is representation.

And representation, when stretched too thin, becomes abstraction.

At some point, we must ask:

Does representation substitute for engagement, or excuse its absence?

When Process Becomes Performance

There is a phrase for what emerges when consultation exists in form, but not in substance:

Advisory theater.

It has all the elements

• Committees,

• Meetings,

• Summaries,

• Acknowledgments,

• A paper trail up the chain of administrative command.

  
  

But the outcome is rarely in doubt.

The timelines are compressed.

The donor conditions are largely fixed.

The opportunity is framed as too important to risk.

And so the process proceeds, not to shape the decision, but to legitimize it.

The Cost of Silence

When stakeholders are not directly consulted, something subtle but profound is lost.

Not control, but most never expected that.

What is lost is voice.

And with it:

Trust erodes.

Cynicism takes root.

Engagement quietly diminishes.

Faculty begin to wonder whether participation matters.

Staff question whether their perspective is valued.

Students observe, and learn what governance looks like.

Alumni take note of how legacy is negotiated.

And the institution, though perhaps financially strengthened, becomes culturally thinner.

The Public University Standard

This matters even more in a public institution.

The University of California is not a private enterprise.

It is supported by taxpayers.

It serves a public mission.

That mission carries an implicit obligation:

Decisions that shape the institution should reflect more than administrative authority.

They should reflect community consent.

Not unanimity.

Not delay for its own sake.

But visible, good-faith engagement with those who bear the consequences.

A Simple Test

There is a straightforward way to assess whether shared governance is functioning as intended:

Would the process withstand open, prior, and informed discussion?

If the answer is yes, then consultation strengthens the decision.

If the answer is uncertain, then consultation becomes inconvenient.

And if the answer is no, then what we are protecting is not the institution, but the process that bypassed it.

The Question That Remains

This is not a question about any single decision.

It is a question about precedent.

Because each time a major decision is made without broad consultation, a new norm is quietly established:

That efficiency outweighs engagement.

That opportunity outweighs process.

That representation is sufficient.

And each time, shared governance becomes a little less shared...

Final Thought

The issue is not whether leaders have the authority to act without consultation.

They do.

The issue is whether they choose to exercise that authority in a way that reflects the values they are entrusted to uphold.

Because in the end:

Shared governance is not defined by who is allowed to decide.

It is defined by who is invited to be heard.

Before the decision is made.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond