top of page
Search

The Principles Gap: When a University’s Actions No Longer Match Its Principles (#598)

  • Rick LeCouteur
  • 12 hours ago
  • 7 min read

An opinion piece on donor influence, governance, transparency, and institutional trust.


Each spring at the University of California, Davis, two familiar events quietly are a reminder of what a university is meant to be.


Picnic Day opens the campus to the public. Families wander through laboratories, alumni retrace old paths, and students share their work with pride. It is a day of openness, curiosity, and belonging for all stakeholders.


Soon afterward, the Day of Giving invites that same community of stakeholders to invest in the university’s future, reinforcing the idea that a university is not merely administered from above, but sustained by the people who believe in it.


And yet, even within this spirit of generosity, a contrast is difficult to ignore.


Major donors are prominently and repeatedly recognized, as they should be.


But the many smaller donors who give faithfully, year after year, often remain far less visible, even though their collective contribution may be just as important to the institution’s long-term strength.


That contrast may seem minor.


It is not.


It points to a larger question:


How closely do institutional actions align with institutional values?


The Principles We Claim


Principles of Community at UC Davis speak clearly of:


Respect,

Inclusion,

Integrity,

Accountability, and

Shared Purpose.


These are not ornamental words. They are meant to shape judgment, conduct, and decision-making.


However, any institution can publish admirable principles.


The real test is whether those principles remain visible when decisions are difficult, consequential, or inconvenient.


That is where the Principles Gap begins.


Where the Principle Gap Becomes Visible


Several recurring features of university life raise legitimate questions about whether institutional practice is fully keeping pace with institutional ideals and values.


1. Corporate Board Service: Integrity and Accountability.


When senior university administrators serve on corporate boards, particularly in sectors closely connected to the university’s mission, the issue is not simply whether such roles are formally permitted.


The deeper question is whether they strengthen or strain public confidence.


Such arrangements can reasonably give rise to concerns about actual or perceived conflicts of commitment, blurred institutional loyalties, or the appearance that private affiliations sit too close to public responsibility.


Even when rules are followed, perception still matters.


A public university depends not only on compliance, but on trust.


Integrity requires more than technical permissibility.


It asks whether an arrangement reflects sound judgment, clear independence, and fidelity to institutional purpose.


Accountability requires more than internal approval.


It requires a degree of openness that allows the wider university community to understand why such arrangements are considered appropriate, how they are reviewed, and why confidence in institutional independence should remain intact.


2. Major Renaming Decisions: Inclusion and Respect.


Renaming a school with a long history and public identity is not a “simple” administrative adjustment.


  • Renaming is a significant institutional act.

  • Renaming affects faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the broader community that identifies with the institution’s history, mission, and reputation.

  • Renaming affects all the stakeholders.


When decisions of this scale appear to proceed without broad, visible, and clearly documented consultation, the university’s stated commitments to inclusion and respect come under real pressure.


Inclusion is not satisfied by informing people after the course has already been set.


Respect is not demonstrated by allowing stakeholders to respond only after the important decisions have effectively been made.


Meaningful consultation is not a ceremonial extra. It is one of the ways a public university affirms that it is a shared institution rather than a managed brand.


When consultation is narrow, opaque, or difficult to identify, shared governance can begin to feel less like a living principle and more like a gesture toward one.


3. Conditional Philanthropy: Transparency, Shared Governance, and Informed Stakeholders.


Philanthropy can do enormous good for a university. Major gifts can expand facilities, support students, advance research, and strengthen institutional ambition.


But large gifts can also raise difficult questions when they are accompanied by conditions -  expectations, timelines, naming provisions, strategic commitments, or other terms that may shape institutional decisions in significant ways.


The issue is not whether donors should be thanked for their generosity. Of course they should.


The issue is whether the university community is given a fair opportunity to understand the terms under which major gifts are accepted when those terms may affect institutional priorities, identity, decision-making, or future obligations.


When a gift is associated with substantial conditions, stakeholders may reasonably ask:


  • What, exactly, has been promised?

  • What deadlines, expectations, or naming provisions are attached?

  • What institutional discretion has been preserved, and what may have been constrained?

  • Who was informed before the decision was finalized, and how fully were they informed?


These are not hostile questions.


These are governance questions.


At a public university transparency matters not only because it builds trust, but because it helps ensure that philanthropy supports the institution without appearing to direct it in ways the broader community has not had the opportunity to understand or discuss.


If faculty, staff, students, alumni, and other stakeholders are expected to embrace major institutional changes associated with large gifts, it is reasonable for them to expect clarity about any material conditions attached to those gifts, particularly when those conditions may influence naming, construction timelines, strategic priorities, or other matters of lasting consequence.


Shared governance cannot function meaningfully if key stakeholders are asked to accept outcomes without being adequately informed about the terms that helped produce them.


Trust and respect require more than announcement after the fact.

Inclusion requires more than symbolic consultation.

Accountability requires more than reassurance.


Accountability requires enough transparency for the university community to understand not only that a gift was accepted, but the framework in which it was accepted.


Philanthropy is most consistent with institutional values when it strengthens the university’s mission without diminishing the community’s confidence that major decisions remain transparent, principled, and genuinely shared.


4. The Language of Rankings: Integrity and Humility


The repeated celebration of a “#1 ranking” may seem harmless. It may even be effective marketing.


But universities are supposed to do more than market themselves.


  • Rankings are shaped by methodology, weighting, reputation effects, and selective criteria.

  • Rankings may be useful in limited ways, but they are not self-interpreting truths.


To present them as though they were simple measures of excellence risks substituting promotional convenience for intellectual honesty.


Integrity requires context.


  • What exactly is being measured?

  • What is not being measured?

  • How stable is the methodology?

  • How much of the result reflects reputation rather than performance?


These are the kinds of questions universities should be asking, especially when the rankings flatter them.


And beneath integrity lies another academic virtue that should not be surrendered to branding:


Humility.


A university should model nuance, not institutional self-congratulation.


The Through Line: Distance


These examples may seem unrelated:


Donor recognition,

Board service,

Renaming decisions,

Conditional philanthropy, and

Rankings rhetoric.


They are not.


They are connected by a common pattern:


Distance.


  • Distance between leadership and stakeholders.

  • Distance between contribution and recognition.

  • Distance between stated principle and institutional behavior.

  • Distance between authority and legitimacy.


It is in that distance that trust begins to weaken.


Not all at once. Often quietly.


From Principles to Practice


The Principles of Community are not tested on Picnic Day.


The Principles of Community are not tested when the institution is presenting itself at its best.


The Principles of Community are tested in the quieter moments:


  • When a decision could be made quickly, or opened more broadly to discussion.

  • When recognition could be concentrated, or shared more thoughtfully.

  • When messaging could be amplified, or tempered with context.

  • When philanthropy could be welcomed with gratitude, yet still accompanied by transparency.

  • When a university must decide whether:

    • Efficiency matters more than inclusion, or

    • Whether control matters more than legitimacy.


Those are the moments when principles cease to be slogans and become standards.


A Final Reflection


Universities often ask their communities to believe in shared values.


That is fair.


But those communities are entitled to ask a reciprocal question:


Does the institution believe in them strongly enough to practice them when it matters most?


  • When major donors receive the most visible recognition while smaller loyal donors recede from view.

  • When major institutional decisions appear to move forward without broad and clearly visible consultation with stakeholders.

  • When substantial gifts are accepted without stakeholders being adequately informed of material conditions attached to them.

  • When external board roles raise understandable questions about alignment and independence.

  • When flattering rankings are repeated more as promotional shorthand than as carefully explained measures,


The issue is not simply whether such actions are permitted.


The issue is whether they are worthy of the Principles of Community so often invoked to justify institutional trust.


A university’s values mean very little if they are most visible only in ceremony, branding, and official statements, but far less visible when power is being exercised, priorities are being set, and the community is expected to accept decisions already made.


  • Principles are not tested when they are easy to display.

  • Principles are tested when they are inconvenient to honor.


And if a university asks its faculty, staff, students, alumni, and supporters to take its principles seriously, then it must be willing to show that those principles still carry weight when money, prestige, and administrative control are at stake.


Otherwise, the gap between language and conduct widens, and trust weakens not because people fail to hear what the institution says, but because they hear it clearly and no longer believe it.


The danger is not only that principles are ignored.

It is that they remain on display while quietly losing their authority.


Background Reading


Picnic Day 18th April 2026. https://picnicday.ucdavis.edu/




UC Davis Inclusive Excellence, Principles of Community. https://excellence.ucdavis.edu/





CHANCELL-ING: A Message from the Chancellor’s Leadership Council. https://leadership.ucdavis.edu/column/chancell-ing-message-chancellors-leadership-council


Zoetis welcomes Dr. Mark Stetter to its Board of Directors. https://talent4boards.com/zoetis-welcomes-dr-mark-stetter-to-its-board-of-directors/


UC-Davis veterinary school receives record $120M gift. https://www.avma.org/news/uc-davis-veterinary-school-receives-record-120m-gift


UC Davis Receives $120M Gift, Largest Ever to Veterinary Medicine. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-receives-120m-gift-largest-ever-veterinary-medicine


Accelerating Momentum: UC Davis Achieves Historic Fundraising Year. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/accelerating-momentum-uc-davis-achieves-historic-fundraising-year


UC Davis Weill School of Veterinary Medicine Ranked No. 1 Nationally for 10th Consecutive Year. https://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/news/veterinary-medicine-ranked-no-1-tenth-consecutive-year


Comments

©2025 by Rick LeCouteur. Created with Wix.com

bottom of page