What Is True Philanthropy? Part 1: Giving Without Owning (#511)

This essay begins a six-part series exploring the changing nature of philanthropy in veterinary medicine and higher education.

It is not a critique of generosity, nor an argument against giving, but an examination of how money, naming, and influence now intersect in ways that shape institutional identity, professional values, and public trust.

Across these six pieces, I will look at what philanthropy once meant, how naming rights have become normalized, what large gifts mean for smaller donors, how corporate logic increasingly frames academic decision-making, and what may be quietly lost in the process.

The goal is not to assign blame, but to ask careful questions about stewardship, independence, and the future of professions built on service rather than scale.

There was a time when philanthropy carried a quiet dignity.

It was an act of gratitude rather than assertion, of stewardship rather than signature.

The giver supported a cause not to be seen, but because the cause mattered.

Buildings rose, scholarships were endowed, programs flourished, and often no one knew exactly who had made them possible.

That discretion was not accidental. It reflected an understanding that institutions, particularly those devoted to education and public service, belonged to something larger than any one individual.

In recent years, that understanding has shifted.

Philanthropy has become more visible, more transactional, and increasingly tied to naming rights.

Gifts are now frequently accompanied by a form of permanence: a name etched into stone, affixed to a building, or woven into the identity of an institution itself.

This evolution raises a question worth asking:

Is philanthropy still philanthropy when it requires ownership?

The Original Spirit of Giving

At its best, philanthropy is an act of humility.

It acknowledges that one has benefited from education, opportunity, fortune, or circumstance, and seeks to give something back to the system that made that success possible.

The motivation is outward-facing, not self-referential.

Historically, many of the most transformative gifts in education and medicine were given quietly. Donors trusted institutions to steward resources wisely. Recognition, if it came at all, was modest.

The emphasis was on impact, not identity.

That ethos created something powerful: institutions whose values were shaped internally, rather than influenced externally.

When Recognition Becomes the Transaction

Modern philanthropy often operates differently.

Today, large gifts are frequently accompanied by naming rights, not just for buildings, but for departments, programs, and even entire schools.

The gift becomes inseparable from the donor’s identity.

This shift does not make donors less generous.

But it does change the nature of the gift.

What was once an act of support becomes a form of legacy construction. The institution, in turn, becomes a vessel for that legacy.

This creates a subtle but important transformation:

• Giving becomes transactional,

• Recognition becomes expected, and

• Identity becomes negotiable.

None of this requires ill intent. It simply reflects the culture of modern wealth, where visibility and permanence often accompany generosity.

The Difference Between Support and Ownership

There is a meaningful distinction between supporting an institution and becoming part of its identity.

Support strengthens what already exists.

Ownership reshapes it.

When a name is attached to a building or program, the institution absorbs more than money. It absorbs association, expectation, and symbolic alignment. Over time, that alignment influences how the institution sees itself and how others see it.

This is a particularly sensitive subject in public universities, whose legitimacy rests on openness, neutrality, and service to the society that funds them.

A school can be grateful without being branded.

A mission can be funded without being renamed.

The challenge lies in knowing where that line should be drawn.

Why This Question Matters Now

These questions are no longer theoretical.

Universities face shrinking public funding, rising costs, and growing pressure to compete globally.

Philanthropy fills gaps that governments no longer cover.

At the same time, wealth has become more concentrated, meaning fewer donors now provide larger portions of institutional budgets.

With that concentration comes influence, even when unspoken.

The danger is not corruption.

The danger is quiet dependency.

And dependency, over time, reshapes priorities.

A Pause Worth Taking

This series about philanthropy is not an argument against generosity.

It is an invitation to reflect on how generosity is structured, and what it asks in return.

Before discussing naming rights, institutional identity, or corporate influence, it is worth returning to the simplest question of all:

What should philanthropy mean in a public institution?

• Is it an act of service?

• A partnership?

• A legacy?

• A transaction?

• Or something more restrained, humble, and ultimately more enduring?

Rick’s Commentary

These questions are not abstract, nor are they theoretical.

They take on real meaning when generosity intersects with institutions we know, trust, and care about.

In Part 2 of this series I turn to a specific and very contemporary example:

The recent naming of the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine following a historic philanthropic gift.

This case example illustrates both the extraordinary good philanthropy can achieve, and the unease that arises when generosity becomes inseparable from institutional identity.

Part 2 is not a critique of individuals, but an exploration of what it means when a veterinary school within a public university takes a private name, and what that may signal for the future of veterinary medicine.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond