Maintaining Secrecy on UBC President's Resignation Is Bad PR

When the Deepwater Horizon spilled millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP's public relations flacks repeated the refrain "this was not our accident," pointing blame on the oil rig operator.

When hundreds of people died from tread separation of Firestone tires on Ford Explorers, Ford insisted, "It is a tire problem, not a vehicle problem." Firestone, in turn, insisted its tires are "among the safest tires on the road."

And when the University of British Columbia's president suddenly "resigned" earlier this month, UBC officials and members of the Board of Governors praised Dr. Arvind Gupta's "hard work, integrity, and dedication," and said he was stepping down to "focus on his research and scholarly work that will be of mutual benefit."

The first two examples have gone down in corporate PR history, embarrassing in hindsight, but logical when you look at them in the context of corporate culture. Companies have a primary responsibility to their shareholders, and coming out with uncomfortable details early could plummet stock prices.

While I am no fan of oil spills or killer cars, I admit I would be a little peeved if my pension disappeared because it was invested in a company in crisis, and some PR official tanked the firm's value with a too-honest slip of the tongue.

But universities are not corporations. They are not obliged to, nor should they, abide by the same rules that govern entities that have a single-minded fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. The shareholders of the university are the students, faculty and staff, and the entire tax-paying population of British Columbia.

A clash of cultures

UBC is made up of thousands of people who are trained to ask tough questions, so it should come as no surprise that faculty and students simply did not buy it when the university's Board of Governors said we must "be respectful" of "confidentiality agreements" that were put into place when the president "resigned." 

Perhaps the problem comes down to a clash of cultures -- between board members who mostly come from corporate backgrounds, and a university which is supposed to play by different rules.

But the confidentiality agreement should never have been signed at a public institution that values transparency and critical thinking. It was the original sin of this story, and the cause of a rash of blog and media speculation that has ultimately sparked ugly confrontations between the board and faculty.

There's no evidence that either Dr. Gupta or those still running the university have done anything wrong. Few of us know the details of this sordid tale, and at this point, assigning blame is less important than fixing the problem.

Some have suggested that the non-disclosure rule is in place to protect Dr. Gupta. If that's true, he should fall on his sword and insist that it be lifted, for the sake of the university. And if it exists to protect UBC -- well, it's not working.