Perhaps he's among the people one might want to cut, then—highly paid scientists! Faculty salary increases are mainly going to the prominent STEM faculty, who typically make >$100k (sometimes >$150k recently), because otherwise you are not going to retain them in the face of competition from other universities and the private sector. So I guess the board should be happy about his departure, no? A decrease in payroll! Certainly some $65k philosophers who haven't gotten a raise since 2003 isn't where all the extra money is going.
If those faculty aren't bringing in increased grant funding to cover their salaries, then let them go. Grant funding made up only 1/4 of university revenue, and in the face of only a 60% increase as overall expenditures have grown 80%, has actually dropped from just over 1/4 in 2001 to significantly under 1/4 in 2012.
At the end of the day, the growth in expenses has not been funded by grants, etc. The biggest component of increased revenue has been tuition. A tripling of tuition is what has paid for the 4-5% annual increase in faculty salary expenditures. Opposing faculty cuts is a slap in the face to the students that now pay 1/3 of the university's operating expenses.
How about the significant decrease in per-student state funding?
In any case, I don't see anyone on either side in this standoff making that tough proposal. Instead, we have the (now-fired) incrementalist looking for across-the-board savings, and the apparently-incompetent Goldman Sachs schemers looking to cut the faculty who don't even account for the past decade's salary increases (humanities, etc.). If someone is actually in favor of making the tough call to fire the 6-figure STEM faculty, they should come out and say so, and lay out their proposal.
> How about the significant decrease in per-student state funding?
One of my beefs with the "decreased state funding" argument is that it presupposes that state funding should keep up with dramatic expansions in University expenditures.
Now, to be fair, state funding has dropped from $166m in 2001 to $140m today. Had it kept pace with enrollment and inflation, it should be about $233m today. State funding keeping pace would have allowed tuition to merely double instead of triple as it has.
On the other hand, all of the cuts have been since 2007. I.e. the greatest recession since the 1930's. During this time, faculty salary expenditures have continued to grow. In an economic environment where nearly everyone's salaries have stagnated or been cut. What should have happened instead is layoffs and salary cuts, as happened in nearly every other field.
