I basically echo @cactus_pardner's comments, but/and with some further points:
First, again, universities (like corporations) behave like feral, amoral entities whose only genuine concern is self-preservation or self-aggrandizement. In particular, disturbingly, they can shed administrators who in-effect impede that. So it's not that "all we have to do" is get university presidents and regents that are honest, fair, scrupulous, etc., because the very entity that is the university itself may either prevent that, or manage to get such people out of the system.
In that context, to "induce" such an entity to "care" is rather difficult. Further, it may also be a bit difficult even to induce individuals in that system to "care" in a helpful/useful way, first because many relatively-powerful players will have been "selected-for" not-caring-too-much, and second because even more altruistic experience people will know all too well the uphill battle that you'd face.
E.g., even the HR (=human resources) department, and "ombudsman" office, are fundamentally (in the U.S., in my observation) "CYA" implementers. That is, they exist and operate so that the entity that is the university can say that they have such offices (purportedly) acting on behalf of students, staff, and faculty who'd otherwise have too little power to change anything or even defend themselves. But their fundamental loyalty has to be to their employer... and, again, the situation will tend to drive out too-altruistic players, because the university-entity will usually prefer less-altruistic rule-players.
This is just explanation of the context. But then the point is that a relatively powerless person such as you or me has to "play" things in a way that makes the powerful entity (=university/corporation) see an advantage to itself to take your side or care about your situation. "Justice" alone, or human compassion, etc., are not adequate motivations, sadly.
EDIT: as requested by @aparente001's comment: first, I'd claim that I'm not being so much "bitter" as "cynical", if that distinction has content. But, yes, my current thinking on this is based on several decades of direct observation, not gossip. For that matter, my initial state was a belief that universities really are the idealized and idealistic entities we might imagine they are, as opposed to for-profit corporations. To begin with, it appears that people appointed-to or otherwise hired for various high-level positions are chosen in part because they always know the right thing to say. This is presumably better than not knowing what is right (in the vein of "hypocrisy is the first step toward virtue, because it at least recognizes virtue"), but, as it turns out, this means that it is impossible to predict what action will be taken, from the words spoken.
I've seen more than one denial-of-tenure episodes that led to grievances, and I testified on behalf of the junior person who was denied tenure. In all cases, the institution decided that, yes, procedures were violated, but the conclusion stands. Even then, the "violation of procedures" really were blackballing attempts (which succeeded) by one or two "powerful" individuals. In at least one case, a higher-level committee was inappropriately influenced by a single individual, with the effect being to attempt to deny tenure, but, luckily, at that time the Dean was actually a conscientious person, and smelled something fishy, so the injustice was averted. My interpretation of this was that some individuals can be trusted, but that the institution is much easier to manipulate, and, therefore, cannot be trusted in the same way.
Having seen many university presidents and deans come and go, the pattern of selection process becomes clear, and it is not reassuring. The best dean I recall so far was an "acting dean", who'd been associate dean, as placeholder while looking for a more glamorous (!?) candidate. Luckily, for whatever reason, we had him in that role for many years.
There was the episode 15 years ago when I was Director of Grad Studies in math, and was "ordered" by "the Graduate School" to unilaterally change the conditions-of-employment of the entering class of math grad students, to worsen their insurance coverage. (This was motivated entirely by that entity's scrounging for money, and targeting what they perceived as a defenseless group.) I objected, both because it was exactly an attempt to take advantage of relatively powerless people, and because I'd already signed my own name on all the offers (which included, as we can understand, specifics about healthcare and other stuff). I was told that it didn't matter, because these were only kids, and anyway they'd never know the difference. Shocking... but eventually the institution relented, after some suggestions from me (and others) that with documentation of this sort of communication, local newspapers might be interested...
Chronically, women in math (traditionally wildly under-represented) have been, in my observation, treated badly, both in large and small senses. Attempts by me and a few other individuals to remedy this, while officially approved, are not actually functionally supported. E.g., recently every employee had to do a Title IX training... the point of which was in effect that nowadays by university policy people outside the Title IX office are not to do anything at all about such things, except report them to the Title IX office. This is a perfect cover-your-ass strategy for the institution, but is far too blunt an instrument for dealing with subtler things, that are essentially impossible to document. Thus, the effect is to squelch any crap below a certain (high) thresh-hold... but the institution can claim that they've taken decisive steps.
And so on...