Times are tough for those living after the Great Rescission. Nowhere is this more noticeable than on Cal State University campuses. After millions in cuts made by the state to higher education this year, a statement needs to be made.
Nothing would make more of a statement than all CSU presidents accepting a salary freeze.
During a meeting last week discussing a new salary cap on CSU presidents, this same idea was brought up by Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.
According to a Los Angeles Times article Torlakson said at the meeting, “The students we serve and the public that supports our system enjoy no immunity from the consequences of the Great Recession, which has left millions without work and millions more working harder for less. Why should those we select to lead our campuses be any different?”
Torlakson’s idea came along in a letter he wrote to the Cal State Chancellor and the Board of Trustees opposing their decision to award a 10 percent pay hike to incoming presidents at Fullerton and East Bay campuses.
If President F. King Alexander and the rest of the current and incoming CSU presidents decided to take a salary freeze, it wouldn’t be a stand that goes unnoticed. With presidential salaries nearing $400,000 a year, this wouldn’t fix the CSU financial deficit, but it would reassure students and faculty that the presidents want to make the situation a priority.
When enrolling for Cal State Long Beach next semester, students will have to deal with a freeze put on how many classes they can register for the fall term. The limit is 13 units until August. There are also rumblings to freeze all admission for the spring 2013 semester. Freezing his own salary would show that Alexander himself understands our pain.
Taking a salary-freeze would be a big commitment for the CSU presidents to make. We do not believe that our presidents should work for free. With tuition rising more than 300 percent the last decade, the presidents’ salaries should be more reflective of this.
A full academic year salary-freeze may not go far enough. But, the presidents agreeing to decrease their salary the same percentage as the student’s tuition increase would be appropriate.
This action by the presidents would connect them more with their students. In essence, tuition increasing for students would have a trickling effect. This act would show that the presidents empathize with students and faculty. Students would be forced to have less money in their pockets and so would their school presidents.
Associated Student Inc. leaders should also consider accepting a similar pay decrease. ASI student leaders have been accused for years of being overpaid. This would be a great way the lighten the criticism. It would also provide another incentive for our leaders to work harder at lowering tuition, as it would now affect everyone in the CSU system.
It would be appropriate for CSU presidents to take a salary freeze. But bearing the same pain tuition hikes bring us students, Alexander and company could show they have empathy for students and our CSU faculty.
Presidential salaries have been frozen (including for President Alexander) since 2007. No sitting president has recieved a raise in that entire time. The discussion of “raises” is actually a misnomer for hiring decisions involving presidents new to a campus.
In fact, over the 2008-2010 period, nearly $60 million in actual raises (promotional, general and other categories) were given to faculty, but $0 in raises were given to sitting presidents.