Buying Leadership

Example is not the main thing in influencing others.  It is the only thing.  ~Albert Schweitzer

My last post discussed the recent University of California tuition increases passed by the UC Board of Regents.  Not to be outdone the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees, in a twisted version of “keeping up with the Joneses,” passed some increases of its own.  According to their website, the CSU system is the largest university system in the nation, with 23 campuses and an enrollment of nearly 412,000 students.

Like UC, the CSU has passed a series of increases in less than a year’s time.  In November of 2010, the trustees did a financial two step and passed a 5 percent mid-year increase that went into effect in January of this year and a second increase of 10 percent beginning in fall 2011.  Last week CSU tuition was increased again by another 12 percent for a total increase of 27 percent.  The increases are due to the miserly budget recently passed by the California State Legislature which slashed 650 million dollars of state funding to the CSU system.  Along with the fee increases, CSU is expected to cut faculty and staff and to reduce enrollment by 2.4 percent.  That’s about 10,000 students that will be making other plans this coming fall.

But in nearly the same breath, the Board of Trustees did what could only be described as breathtaking.  Right after announcing the tuition hikes, the board announced that the incoming President of San Diego State, Elliot Hirshman would be getting a raise of 100,000 dollars over his predecessor and making a comfortable 400,000 dollars.  Needless to say folks all over the state from students to parents to legislators to the governor himself came off the wall. 

Members of the board defended the pay hike citing that high salaries are necessary in order to attract top talent.  The Governor, in a dry rebuttal, said, “The assumption is that you cannot find a qualified man or woman to lead the university unless paid twice that of the chief justice of the United States.  I reject this notion.”

Frankly I’m tired of hearing that stock excuse that you have to waive the combination to the bank vault in the air in order to find a qualified leader.  Hirshman’s case is particularly odious when you consider that a professor’s salary was sacrificed so that the top bureaucrat wouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of earning a paltry 300,000 dollars.  How many scholarships would 100,000 dollars have bought?

I imagine that it’s rather quaint and naïve of me to think that it would have been nice to see Hirshman recognize the crisis, turn down the raise, accept the job and tough it out on 300K.  He certainly would be able to walk through campus and command respect rather than the resentment that will surely follow in his rich wake.  My kind of leader is an individual who will recognize a problem and lead by example.  Hirshman is doing neither.  In accepting his raise Hirshman is turning up his nose at the budget problem and setting the example that he is exempt from the sacrifices that faculty, staff, students and parents are forced to make.  My question to Dr. Hirshman would be, how in good conscience can you accept that raise?  I suppose that in the cold world of business, outrageous and inappropriate salaries are the expected norm.  But to me, and here I go with my innocent way of thinking, in the world of academia there is an expectation of a nobler ideal.