The Great Ivy League Presidential Salary Penis Contest of Fiscal 2004-’05
The Chronicle of Higher Education's annual report on executive compensation is in, and there you have it, in primary colors: former Cornell president Jeff Lehman can buy and sell your president before lunch, with enough left over for 375 PlayStation 3's.
Lehman banked $1,004,034 in Ithaca dollars, mind you, further raising the cost-of-living premium over suckers like Larry Summers (sniff) and Lee Bollinger. James Wright of Dartmouth was the big loser, unable to crack the half-mil barrier; in the co-ed, towel-snapping locker room of Ivy presidents past and present, he's the one changing beneath a towel.
Cue ominous music: But what price victory, Jeff? The Sun reported last month that a chunk of Lehman's payout was hush money, to keep him from blabbing about the controversy surrounding his departure.
Moving on, there's more fun to be had with the Chronicle's data, especially in the expense account category. We don't know why Wright and Ruth Simmons are listed as having $0 at their disposal; we do know that it's kinda funny Bollinger gets to blow a full fifth of Wright's entire salary on hookers and goofballs. And poor Dick Levin! Twelve thousand dollars a year? Someone get this man a financial aid package!
14 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: presidents
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
November 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Keep in mind that Lehman’s huge salary is partly based on bonuses he got when he left.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Someone make a joke about Cornell’s president’s salary.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
what’s the point, he’s no longer in office.
it’s like making a Woodrow wilson joke – may be funny sometimes, but it’s still old news.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Don’t forget, Tilghman is raking it in from Google, see http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/10/18/news/13502.shtml. Since that article was written the stock nearly doubled. She made $5.4mm without as much as lifting a finger.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
In Dartmouth’s defense, the only thing to spend your disposable income on in New Hampshire is booze and political contributions to batshit insane libertarians. It’s not like there’s anything around worth blowing the extra cash on.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Hennessy over here in Palo Alto barely pulls in $500k. He should be taking a 5% commission on all that insane fundraising he’s doing on top of that salary.
Stanford can certainly pay more. How much would we fork over for Bill Clinton when he comes calling for the presidency? $10 mil/year?
November 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I don’t know what kind of California-grown, man-I’m-glad-my-parents-pay-40k-a-year-for-me-to-smoke-away-my-education herb you’ve been puffing, but Clinton is not going to come calling for the Stanford’s presidency. First off, he’s heavily invested in his post-presidency philanthropic efforts, and will probably continue to be so until his death. Secondly, the only presidency he’s interested in anymore is that of the US–for Hillary. Now go back to the left coast and leave us effete Northeasterners to our bad weather and historical stomping grounds. Shoo.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Hey, as Al Franken wisely pointed out–someone could run for President with Clinton as his running mate VOWING to resign if / when elected. Wouldn’t be hard to do at all, and voila–another term for the guy. I’d vote for that match-up, if I could vote, and if it existed.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
I really wish people would occasionally read the constitution and put an end to this nonsense about Bill Clinton as vice president. The 12 amendment pretty clearly states in clear English that no one can be elected vice president who isn’t qualified to be president, and the 22nd amendment disqualifies from the presidency people who have already served at least a term and a half. Enough with this nonsense!
As for the nonsense that is actually the topic of this post: Why has Rick Levin’s salary gone up so astronomically, and why has it gone up so out of proportion to the average salary of a tenured professor? While I’m at it, isn’t he bored? Can’t we get rid of him? How many years must Yale suffer through his autocracy?
November 29th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Al Franken is not wise.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Bollinger was previously provost at Dartmouth, before his stop at Michigan and now another Ivy, lest we forget.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:41 am
jacob:
It’s true that the 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President.” The 22nd Amendment, however, doesn’t make Bill Clinton constitutionally ineligible to the *office* of President. It says, instead, that “No person shall be *elected* to the office of the President more than twice.”
Clinton wouldn’t be elected to the office of President. He’d be elected to the office of Vice-President, and then assume the presidency on the resignation of whomever the elected president happened to be.
Going to happen? Nope. Against the spirit of the 22nd amendment? Yup. But if, for some reason, Bill Clinton chose to run in this way, and if he actually had the enormous political power it would take to win election against the cultural third-term taboo, then mere law wouldn’t be a barrier to the depth of that support. Political reality could exploit legal technicality pretty easily.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:57 am
M, Jacobs…
Good point Marc, you beat me to the punch.
Jacobs, also the twelf amendment states that a hen in the hand is better than some bush.
or something like that.
also, please no more posting of such drivel until facts are straight.
debating would be so much less interesting if done properly.
-james
ps-please note that the spelling error was intentional.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:13 am
M, Jacobs…
Good point Marc, you beat me to the punch.
Jacobs, also the twelf amendment states that a hen in the hand is better than some bush.
or something like that.
also, please no more posting of such drivel until facts are straight.
debating would be so much less interesting if done properly.
-james
ps-please note that the spelling error was intentional.