What’s in a Name? Part 1 - Naming rights and the changing identity of veterinary schools (#561)

For most of my career, veterinary schools had wonderfully plain names.

College of Veterinary Medicine.

School of Veterinary Medicine.

University of X.

Functional. Geographic. Almost anonymous.

They sounded less like brands and more like public trusts.

That wasn’t accidental. It reflected who we were.

Veterinary medicine grew out of agriculture, service, and community need - not prestige, not patronage, and certainly not naming rights. Our colleges belonged to states and professions, not individuals.

But something subtle is changing.

Across the United States, a new wave of veterinary colleges is emerging. At the same time, entire schools - not just buildings or hospitals - are beginning to carry people’s names.

And that represents more than a courtesy plaque.It signals a cultural shift.

A profession expanding quickly

The landscape itself is changing rapidly.

The U.S. currently has 33 accredited colleges of veterinary medicine, with many new programs in development, including Clemson, Rowan, Arkansas State, Utah State, and others, all moving through the AVMA Council on Education pipeline .

Historically, we have seen bursts of expansion before.

Between 1968 and 1979 alone, nine new schools opened - a 50% increase at the time .

So growth is not new.

What is new is how some of these schools are being financed, and what they are being called.

How it used to work

Traditionally, veterinary philanthropy looked like this:

A donor funded:

A hospital wing

A research building

An endowed chair

Scholarships

The school kept its institutional name.

Recognition was generous but contained.

The identity of the college - its public, professional character - remained intact.

You might see:

The Smith Small Animal Teaching Hospital or The Smith Diagnostic Laboratory

but never

The Smith College of Veterinary Medicine.

Entire-school naming simply wasn’t our way.

Human medicine chose differently

Human medicine crossed that bridge long ago.

There, naming rights are almost expected:

Johns Hopkins

MD Anderson

Weill Cornell

and countless others.

Large gifts buy permanent identity.

It’s now part of the financial model.

Nobody even blinks.

But veterinary medicine historically resisted this. Perhaps because we were smaller. Perhaps because we were public. Or perhaps because the culture of veterinary medicine has always leaned toward service rather than status.

We didn’t think of ourselves as something to brand.

The new moment

Now we are seeing something different.

Entire veterinary colleges named for individuals.

Not just founders from the 1800s, but contemporary donors and political advocates.

These include:

Clemson’s Harvey S. Peeler Jr. College of Veterinary Medicine

UC Davis’ Weill School of Veterinary Medicine

Tufts’ Cummings School

This is no longer an exception.

It’s becoming a pattern.

And once patterns take hold, they rarely reverse.

Why this matters

At first glance, naming seems harmless. Even generous.

After all, philanthropy builds hospitals. Funds research. Supports students.

We need those things.

But naming rights are not neutral.

A name quietly shapes:

Institutional identity

Perceived ownership

Whose story is centered

Whose contributions are remembered and whose are forgotten

There is a difference between:

“This hospital was made possible by…”

and

“This entire school is named after…”

The first expresses gratitude.

The second transfers identity.

That’s a much bigger trade.

Lessons from history

Human medicine shows us both sides of the ledger.

The benefits:

Faster capital

Political support

New facilities

Rapid growth

The costs:

Donor influence over priorities

Brand eclipsing mission

Smaller donors feeling invisible

Reputational risk when names age poorly

Gradual privatization of what once felt public

Veterinary medicine has largely avoided those tensions.

But if we adopt the naming model, we inherit the same consequences.

Not immediately. But inevitably.

A personal reflection

Having spent decades in public veterinary education, I still instinctively think of our colleges as belonging to everyone - students, faculty, farmers, pet owners, communities.

Not to a benefactor.

Not to a politician.

Not to a brand.

There’s something grounding about a simple name: College of Veterinary Medicine.

It says: This place serves the profession.

It doesn’t say: This place belongs to someone.

Perhaps that distinction is small.

Or perhaps it’s everything.

The question for the next decade

As new schools open to address workforce needs, and as philanthropy becomes more central to their survival, we face a quiet decision:

Do we follow the human medicine model completely?

Or do we define a veterinary version that preserves our professional character?

In other words:

Is a veterinary school a public trust?

Or a named asset?

We are only beginning to answer that question.

Coming next in this series

Part 2 - The Money Behind the Names. How declining public funding and rising costs are pushing veterinary colleges toward donor-driven models.

Part 3 - Who Gets Remembered? What naming rights mean for smaller donors, alumni, and faculty legacies.

Part 4 - Alternatives to Renaming. Ways to honor philanthropy without surrendering institutional identity.

Background

On January 28, 2026, the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) announced a record-breaking $120 million donation from Joan and Sanford I. Weill to its School of Veterinary Medicine.

In recognition, the institution was renamed the UC Davis Joan and Sanford I. Weill School of Veterinary Medicine.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond