What is True Philanthropy? Part 5: Board membership, naming rights, and the same quiet problem (#518)

As I start Part 5, a pattern should be clear.

Naming rights are not simply about recognition.

Corporate board appointments are not simply about service.

Both represent a deeper change in how influence operates inside public institutions.

Influence that is structural, normalized, and largely invisible.

This part of the series brings those two strands together.

The Shared Logic Behind Naming and Board Seats

At first glance, donor naming rights and corporate board membership appear unrelated.

One concerns philanthropy. The other concerns governance.

But beneath the surface, they share a common logic.

Both:

• Confer proximity without ownership.

• Create influence without formal authority.

• Shape culture without issuing directives.

• Operate through alignment rather than instruction.

A named school does not give the donor control, yet the institution now carries that donor’s identity.

A board seat does not give a corporate interest authority over the university, yet leadership now operates inside corporate governance structures.

In both cases, power is ambient rather than explicit.

And that is precisely why it is difficult to confront.

Naming Rights: Influence Made Permanent

When a public institution accepts a naming gift at the scale of an entire school, it is not merely expressing gratitude.

It is embedding a relationship into its identity.

That decision:

• Outlives administrators.

• Outlives donors.

• Reshapes how the institution is perceived internally and externally.

No donor needs to make demands once their name is on the building.

The institution will protect the relationship on its own.

That is not corruption.

It is human behavior.

Board Membership: Influence Made Routine

Corporate board service works the same way.

When senior academic leaders sit on corporate boards, particularly in industries closely aligned with their academic mission, no instructions need be given.

The influence operates through:

• Shared language,

• Shared norms, and

• Shared assumptions about risk, growth, and strategy.

What feels “reasonable” begins to change.

• Certain critiques feel less natural,

• Certain partnerships feel inevitable, and

• Certain questions feel inconvenient.

  
  

Again, no rules are broken.

No pressure is applied.

And yet, culture shifts.

UC Davis as a Case Study in Convergence

At UC Davis, these two forms of influence now coexist.

The School of Veterinary Medicine bears the name of a major financial donor.

At the same time, senior university leadership holds board positions in:

• Leidos - A global defense and technology corporation, and

• Zoetis - The world’s largest animal health pharmaceutical company.

Each relationship, viewed in isolation, is defensible.

Taken together, they illustrate something more consequential:

A convergence of naming, governance, and corporate alignment within a public institution.

This is not about intent.

It is about accumulation.

The Problem Is Not Conflict - It Is Convergence

Much discussion focuses on conflict of interest and conflict of commitment.

But the more difficult issue is convergence of worldview.

When:

• Donors shape identity,

• Corporations shape leadership experience.

• Market language shapes planning, and

• Visibility shapes institutional decisions.

Public institutions begin to resemble the systems that fund them.

Not by decree, but by drift.

Why This Matters More Than Any One Decision

Naming rights and board memberships are often defended using the same arguments:

• “There is no interference.”

• “There are disclosure policies.”

• “The benefits outweigh the risks.”

Those arguments miss the point.

The issue is not whether influence is misused.

It is whether influence has become structural and unavoidable.

Once that happens, independence is no longer something leaders exercise.

It is something they must consciously reclaim.

Stewardship Requires Boundaries, Not Just Transparency

While transparency is necessary, it is not sufficient.

Public institutions depend on:

• Distance from private power,

• Clarity of purpose, and

• The ability to disappoint donors and partners when values require it.

That becomes harder when:

• A donor’s name defines the institution,

• Corporate norms shape leadership culture, and

• Market logic frames success.

  
  

Boundaries matter most before they are tested.

The Parallel Worth Naming

Naming rights and board memberships are often discussed separately.

They should not be.

They are parallel expressions of the same phenomenon:

Influence without ownership, power without accountability, and alignment without control.

Each may seem manageable on its own.

Together, they reshape institutions.

Looking Ahead

This brings the series to a final question.

If philanthropy shapes identity,

and if corporate logic shapes culture,

and if leadership straddles both worlds,

who is left to guard the independence of the profession itself?

In Part 5 above, I shifted the focus from philanthropy to governance, examining how leadership roles themselves can become sites of influence. While naming rights embed private identity into institutions, corporate board service embeds corporate logic into decision-making.

Neither arrangement necessarily implies wrongdoing, yet both create subtle alignments that shape culture, priorities, and perception.

The issue is not conflict of interest in the narrow legal sense, but conflict of commitment.

The quiet convergence that occurs when public stewards operate simultaneously inside private power structures.

In the upcoming Part 6 of this series, I will ask what kind of future veterinary medicine wishes to claim, and what it must be willing to refuse in order to protect it.

Taken separately, naming rights and board memberships may seem manageable. Taken together, they form something larger: a system in which influence accumulates without ownership and accountability grows diffuse.

In the sixth and final part of this series, I will bring these two threads together explicitly, examining how donor identity and corporate governance intersect, and will ask what it will take to preserve independence, public trust, and professional integrity when both forces operate at once.

Because the future of veterinary medicine will depend less on any single gift or leader, and more on whether institutions recognize convergence before it quietly becomes culture.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond