When in doubt, tell the truth.

There are a lot of negative things happening these days at Kansas University, events and/or situations that could have serious repercussions and damage the school.

Is it best to sit on these situations, let ugly things unravel at their own pace, act as if everything is hunky-dory or acknowledge the troubles and hope that by calling attention to the matters, damages can be minimized or contained rather than let them grow in size and danger?

This writer believes honesty is the best policy. Also, the name of the game these days is “transparency.”

First of all, generations of university administrators, faculty members, students, parents of students, alumni, friends, regents, legislators and extremely generous individuals all have worked hard to help build the university into a truly outstanding state-aided institution.

This has taken years to achieve but it only takes a relative few years of inattention, neglect and/or arrogance by individuals in various categories mentioned in the above paragraph to put the school into a serious downward spiral that oftentimes is difficult to correct.

Right now, KU is in a fragile position.

Consider the following:

There is growing concern about the “chancellor situation.” Individuals and important groups of individuals are questioning the leadership and experience of Bernadette Gray-Little.

She was brought into a very challenging environment with faculty, students, alumni, friends of the university all eager to have her land on the campus, display enthusiasm, leadership, courage, excellent communicative skills and jump-start the university back into its historic pursuit of academic excellence and an environment of enthusiasm, excitement, vision and excellence.

Also, it was hoped a visionary and challenging capital campaign could be launched after a too-long-delayed effort due to the situation in Strong Hall.

Now, many are saying it would not be wise to start the badly needed campaign at this time as recent surveys of major potential donors do not present a favorable environment for a combination of reasons, such as the lack of leadership in Strong Hall, the embarrassing athletic mess, the possibility of further allegations of unethical or illegal actions within the athletic department, very serious potential problems in the School of Business, faculty morale and, the state’s economy.

As for the School of Business, several weeks ago a group of MBA students in the School of Business raised serious questions about the use of funds generated through the “differential tuition” program charged to business school students.

Over the past six years, approximately $31 million to $32 million has been collected from the students, in addition to the fee and tuition money collected from all students.

According to the students asking questions, the money has not been used as was outlined in the original plans for the differential tuition agreement, in fact, it has been used for programs specifically prohibited in the plan.

A student oversight committee was originally called for but the Dean, or others at the School of Business, disbanded this student committee after the first year. This committee was set up to make sure the differential tuition money was spent correctly. In addition to no committee, there has not been a semi-annual financial statement distributed to business school students.

The MBA students have outlined and called attention to many highly questionable activities by those in the Business School and they question the manner in which school officials have responded to the many very serious charges.

There are many questions relative to who has been appointed to serve on committees to investigate the numerous actions in the business school. The belief is that administrators have stacked this deck in who they have presented to review the school’s actions. They are not independent committees.

It is believed the situation at the business school has caused the formation of investigations or audits at all schools within the university that have differential tuition add-ons as this runs into many, many millions of dollars. There also may be a separate investigation of funds at the university’s Edwards Campus operation.

Students have documented the abuses and violations of the differential tuition plan and yet they get little, if any, solid response from the chancellor or provost offices — or the Regents. Rather they receive weak and “don’t-bother-us” replies. The students also question the Regents’ response to the chancellor’s explanation of the situation.

Apparently Regents, school officials and perhaps even members of the Legislature fail to realize or appreciate the seriousness of the students’ questions and requests, as well as the potential fallout for the entire university, specifically the School of Business.

It is a potential powder keg which could cause much damage.

Investigation of the athletic department mess still is under way. It is reported one of the main figures in the investigation has been telling friends he is “singing like a bird” to expose the many additional facets of the ticket scam and perhaps other illegal actions by more individuals.

Good, longtime, loyal and generous alumni and friends of the university and its athletic department continue to ask why former athletics director Lew Perkins was allowed to cut out the sweetest possible deal for himself rather than being fired.

Many are asking what kind of a debt Perkins is leaving KU and who is going to pay off this debt. How much does the KU Endowment Association owe, how much does the athletic department owe and who else will be asked to come up with the dollars to pay the many millions Perkins has charged to the university?

The many questions, doubts and concerns surrounding the university these days cause another serious problem: good faculty members and good researchers receive many job offers. When there is doubt in their minds about the future direction of the university, its leadership and commitment to excellence, etc., they are much more likely to give added consideration to accepting attractive job offers from other institutions.

Consider the “cost” of losing talented faculty members. The cost of recruitment, cost of up-front money to attract a replacement faculty member and the cost of bringing the new faculty member up to the level of the departed all-star faculty member. Along with this is the “cost” of other faculty members giving far more consideration to moving elsewhere inasmuch as other talented faculty members are moving.

These are fragile, dangerous days for the university particularly if those responsible for overseeing the institution, its operation and its future do not face up to the seriousness of the situation.

Trying to push awkward, contentious matters under the rug and hope they will go away is the best guarantee these “problems” and/or “challenges” will grow more dangerous and end up causing extremely costly injuries.

This is indeed a time for openness, honesty, transparency and courage.