The Modern University: When Silence Becomes the Story (#652)

Patience, Persistence, and

the Long Game of Shared Governance

There is a lesson from sport that every university administrator should remember.

In the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Australia defeated Turkey 2–0 despite having only 31% of possession.

Thirty-one percent.

For most of the match, Turkey had the ball. They controlled the tempo. They moved it from side to side. The statistics looked impressive. Possession, passing accuracy, territory, touches.

Yet when the final whistle blew, Australia had won.

Why?

Because possession is not the same as effectiveness.

Activity is not the same as achievement.

And control is not the same as success.

I have been thinking about that match while reflecting on my efforts, as a member of the Academic Senate at UC Davis, to obtain answers to a series of questions regarding naming rights, donor agreements, stakeholder consultation, and shared governance.

The university possesses all the advantages.

The university possesses the information.

The university possesses the administrative machinery.

The university possesses the committees, procedures, lawyers, communications staff, and organizational hierarchy.

The university possesses the clock.

And like many large corporations, the university appears to believe that difficult questions can simply be managed by allowing enough time to pass.

Ignore the questions.

Delay the response.

Refer the matter to another committee.

Acknowledge receipt.

Thank the sender for their interest.

Then wait.

Because eventually people become tired.

They move on.

They lose interest.

The news cycle changes.

The issue disappears.

At least, that is often the strategy.

The problem is that this approach assumes the questioner will eventually give up.

That may be a reasonable assumption in many situations.

It is not always a wise assumption when dealing with Australians.

Australians are descendants of explorers, farmers, miners, migrants, and people who have spent generations living in one of the most demanding environments on Earth.

We are not known for our reverence toward authority.

We are not particularly impressed by titles.

And we tend to regard persistence as a virtue rather than a character flaw.

When confronted with a closed gate, an Australian's first instinct is not necessarily to walk away.

It is often to ask why the gate is there in the first place.

Then to ask again.

And again.

And again.

The questions I have raised are neither radical nor unreasonable.

Who approved these naming rights?

What stakeholder consultation occurred?

What conditions were attached to major gifts?

What role did faculty governance bodies play?

How were the Principles of Community considered?

These are ordinary questions in a public university.

Indeed, one might argue they are exactly the kinds of questions that shared governance was designed to encourage.

Yet months can pass without substantive answers.

Responses often focus on process rather than substance.

The forms were followed.

The procedures were observed.

The boxes were checked.

But the underlying questions remain unanswered.

In soccer, statisticians call this:

Possession without penetration.

The ball moves around impressively, but nothing actually reaches the goal.

The same phenomenon can occur in institutional governance.

Meetings occur.

Memoranda circulate.

Committees deliberate.

Statements are issued.

But the central issue remains untouched.

The objective becomes management of the question rather than answering it.

What universities sometimes fail to appreciate is that time cuts both ways.

Administrators often view delay as an ally.

But delay can also strengthen resolve.

The longer a straightforward question remains unanswered, the more attention people pay to the absence of an answer.

Silence itself becomes part of the story.

Every unanswered email becomes another piece of evidence.

Every deferred discussion becomes another question.

Every procedural response highlights the lack of a substantive one.

The irony is that answering difficult questions is usually easier than avoiding them.

Transparency builds trust.

Engagement builds credibility.

Dialogue builds community.

Avoidance accomplishes the opposite.

The lesson from Australia's soccer victory over Turkey is not that possession is irrelevant.

Possession matters. Resources matter. Authority matters.

But they are not everything.

Sometimes patience matters more.

Sometimes persistence matters more.

Sometimes simply staying on the field matters more.

Universities often assume that concerned faculty members will eventually become distracted, discouraged, or exhausted.

Perhaps many do.

But occasionally they encounter someone who grew up Australian.

Someone who was taught that persistence is not stubbornness.

It is commitment.

Someone who understands that important questions do not become unimportant merely because they remain unanswered.

And someone who knows that, in the end, the scoreboard is not determined by possession statistics.

It is determined by results.

And the match is still being played.

Further Reading

Socceroos stun Turkey as Australia’s youngsters shine in opening World Cup win. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/14/australia-socceroos-turkey-world-cup-2026-group-d-match-report

#bunyipsbooksbeyond