What is True Philanthropy? Part 6: The convergence problem (#520)

This six-part series began with philanthropy and ends with governance, but it has been circling a single question all along:

What happens when influence accumulates without formal ownership, and without clear accountability?

Naming rights and corporate board service are often discussed as separate issues. They are not. They are two expressions of the same structural shift in how power now operates within public institutions.

This final essay brings them together.

Two Different Doors, the Same Room

Naming rights and board memberships enter institutions through different doors.

One arrives as generosity. The other as expertise.

But both lead to the same room.

Naming rights embed private identity into public institutions.

Board service embeds corporate logic into academic leadership.

Neither grants legal control. Neither requires explicit interference. Neither breaks rules.

And yet, together, they reshape culture.

This is the convergence problem.

Naming Rights: Influence Made Permanent

When a public institution accepts a naming gift at the scale of an entire school, the donor does not gain governance authority, but the institution assumes responsibility for protecting the relationship.

That protection becomes internalized.

Administrators become cautious. Critique becomes softer. Reputational risk is carefully managed.

The donor need never speak. The institution will self-regulate.

This is not corruption. It is structural influence.

And it is permanent.

Board Service: Influence Made Routine

Corporate board service operates in much the same way.

When academic leaders sit on corporate boards, particularly in sectors closely aligned with their institution’s mission, they enter environments shaped by different incentives:

• Growth,

• Market share,

• Shareholder value,

• Risk management, and

• Brand protection.

No one instructs them to import these values into the university.

They arrive naturally.

Through language. Through habit. Through repeated exposure to what is considered “reasonable.”

Over time, academic leadership begins to feel more managerial than custodial.

Again, no rules are broken. But the frame of reference shifts.

Convergence Is the Problem, Not Intent

Individually, naming rights may be defended.

Individually, board service may be justified.

The problem is not any single decision.

The problem is accumulation.

When:

• Institutions carry donor names,

• Leaders sit within corporate governance,

• Funding depends increasingly on private capital, and

• Success is measured by visibility and growth,

  
  

public institutions begin to resemble the systems that sustain them.

This is how convergence works.

Why Transparency Is Not Enough

Universities often respond to concerns about influence with transparency:

• Disclosures,

• Conflict-of-interest statements, and

• Compliance reviews.

These are necessary. But, they are not sufficient.

Transparency addresses transactions.

Convergence reshapes culture.

Culture determines:

• What questions feel askable,

• What risks feel acceptable,

• What critiques feel “unhelpful,” and

• What futures feel inevitable.

No disclosure form captures that.

What This Means for Veterinary Medicine

Veterinary medicine is particularly vulnerable to convergence.

It sits at the crossroads of:

• Corporate clinic ownership,

• Pharmaceutical and diagnostic industries,

• Private equity,

• Donor-driven infrastructure, and

• Rising educational debt.

Its moral authority depends on independence, and on the ability to advocate for animals, clients, students, and society without deference to capital.

When naming rights and board service converge, that independence becomes harder to exercise, even when leaders act in good faith.

The profession does not lose its ethics overnight.

It loses its room to dissent.

Stewardship Requires Saying No

True stewardship is not measured by how much money is raised or how many boards are joined.

It is measured by boundaries.

By the willingness to say:

• No gift is large enough to rename the institution,

• This board role is incompatible with this office,

• This partnership compromises perception, or

• This influence is one step too far.

Those decisions are uncomfortable. They are rarely rewarded. But they are essential.

Answering the Convergence Question

So, what happens when naming rights and board service converge?

Public institutions become:

• More cautious,

• More branded,

• More managerial, and

• Less independent.

Not because leaders are unethical. But because influence no longer needs to ask permission.

It is already inside the room.

A Final Choice

The future of veterinary medicine will not be determined by donors alone. Nor by corporations. Nor by administrators.

It will be determined by whether institutions remember what they are meant to protect.

• Public trust,

• Professional independence, and

• Intellectual courage.

Philanthropy should strengthen those values.

Leadership should defend them.

When either begins to substitute for the other, the profession must pause and decide what kind of future it is willing to inherit.

That decision cannot be postponed indefinitely.

Because convergence, once complete, is very difficult to undo.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond