This week San Diego State University (SDSU) announced a new major: Bachelor of Arts in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies. The move makes it only the second college in the United States to offer the undergraduate degree, joining the ranks of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York.
GetOutLB spoke to Cody Barbo, SDSU’s student body president, who was proud to proclaim that ‘SDSU is the first in California to offer an undergraduate degree in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies. SDSU is continuing its role of leadership by offering this degree and many other programs and services to LGBT students.’
In implementing the program, the university will neither hire new faculty nor expand facilities. Students are currently afforded a minor in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies. By continuing to rely on professors teaching courses from English, History, Women’s Studies and Linguistics, offering the new degree will require no change in the university’s budget.
Offering a progressive education to a diverse population is a common practice for SDSU. As part of the largest university system in the nation, its mission is to provide a quality, affordable and accessible higher education to the people of California. In other words, its job in preparing an educated workforce should be aligned with curriculum that reflects society’s makeup. Students interested in further understanding the human condition and the needs of a diverse population will be well served by SDSU’s new program.
While students, faculty and administrators largely agree on the program’s value, not everyone is vocalizing such a positive tone. Martin Garrick, a republican assemblymember from nearby Carlsbad, is criticizing the university’s leadership. ‘I question the decision to expand programs and departments at a time when our education system is dealing with cutbacks. There are already thousands of students who are struggling to get the classes they need to fulfill the requirements for their degrees. Our focus should be on retaining programs and classes that prepare students for the workforce.’
Perhaps considering the facts will change Assembly Member Garrick’s mind, but probably not. Criticizing the state university system is common practice for California’s 80 assembly members and 40 state senators; ignoring the facts for political posturing is common too.
In July, SDSU was thrust into the spotlight for something much different – awarding its new president, Dr. Elliot Hirschman, a $400,000 annual salary. His predecessor, Dr. Stephen Weber, earned $300,000. The president of SDSU is responsible for managing a large public research university with 36,000 students, 3,000 employees, and a $300,000,000 annual budget. Primary roles include fundraising, institutional relations and student success.
Many have assailed the salary decision as irresponsible, unsustainable and unfair. Some have questioned why public officials are receiving raises during an economic nightmare. Those most vocal are four politicians – Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Elaine Alquist, Senator Ted Lieu, and Assembly Member Leland Yee. Governor Brown has repeatedly asked the CSU Trustees to reconsider their decision, and in July he sent a pointed letter to the chancellor and the trustees to that effect. And all three legislators have introduced bills to statutorily curb what they see as out of control compensation policies in the CSU.
Much has been said on this matter, and we at GetOutLB know we’re commenting on this late in the game. But this debate continues and some clarification of the facts is surely needed.
First, contrary to many claims, this salary offer does not constitute a raise. A raise occurs when a current employee receives a positive salary adjustment for doing the same job, not when a new employee is hired and paid more than their predecessor. Dr. Hirshman was recruited from The University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where he served as provost and executive vice president. He began his position as SDSU’s eighth president in June 2011, and has received a very warm welcome from students, faculty, staff and the San Diego community. Like any employee in any organization, he was offered a salary.
Second, the salary comprises $350,000 in state funds and $50,000 from SDSU’s private fundraising arm – The Campanile Foundation. It has been reported that the state is covering the full $400,000 cost, which is incorrect. Still, some say the salary is inappropriate in light of the state’s recent $650 million budget reduction to the CSU system.
Third, there is an issue of comparability here. Executive compensation for the CSU’s 23 presidents is well below the national market for such leaders. According to comparisons with 20 other institutions deemed similar by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC), the CSU lags the market by 45%. A recent report outlined this inequity and other issues, and can be found here.
Fourth, the relationship between executive compensation and tuition warrants some discussion. Some legislators and interest groups argue that tuition is being affected by lavish salaries. Breaking down the numbers says something very different. Of the CSU’s total budget, about 85% is allocated to executive, faculty and staff salaries. Executive compensation’s share of that is less than one percent. Hmm, tuition is certainly affected by overall expenses, and personnel is obviously the university’s largest expense, but the link to specifically to executive compensation is baseless.
Fifth, some have said the CSU has been placed under an unfair spotlight. Why are the salaries of university presidents being scrutinized while others are not? This is a curious point. The head coach of UC Berkeley’s football team is paid $2.3 million per year. The athletic director at UCLA is paid just over $2 million. The chair of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) earns $400,000 per year for a part time position to run the commission. State hospital directors are generally making over $1 million per year. Prison guards are often paid upwards of $200,000 per year. Some would argue that more attention should be paid to these practices instead of focusing so much attention on our university presidents. (Click here for a complete list of California’s state employee’s salaries.)
As you continue reading, hearing, and seeing information about SDSU, President Hirshman and the CSU’s executive compensation, don’t forget that the media is imperfect, and politicians aren’t always altruistic. As the old adage goes, ‘Not everything you read in the paper is true.’