look no further:



The University of California, San Diego has done it again. Last year, it announced the creation of a new diversity sinecure: a vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. Campus leaders established this post even as state budget cuts resulted in the loss of star scientists to competing universities, as humanities classes and degree programs were eliminated to save money, and as tuition continued its nearly 75 percent, five-year rise. The new vice chancellorship was wildly redundant with UCSD�s already-existing diversity infrastructure. As the campus itself acknowledges: �UC San Diego currently has many active diversity programs and initiatives.� No kidding. A partial list of those �active diversity programs and initiatives� may be accessed here.

Now UCSD has filled the position and announced the new vice chancellor�s salary. Linda Greene, a diversity bureaucrat and law professor from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, will pull in $250,000 a year in regular salary, but that�s just the beginning: she�ll receive both a relocation allowance of $60,000 and 100 percent reimbursement of all moving expenses, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, two fully paid house-hunting trips for two to the San Diego area, and reimbursement for all business visits to the campus before her start date in January 2013. (By comparison, an internationally known expert in opto-electronics in UCSD�s engineering school, whose recent work has focused on cancer nanotechnology, received a little over $150,000 in salary from UCSD in 2011, according to state databases.) The UCSD press office did not respond to a request for the amount the university paid the �women-owned executive search firm with a diverse consulting team� it used to find Greene.

More of the big business-model of university management that was made popular in Reagan era. Lots of very highly paid administrators were one result.

Good to know it's all the Republicans' fault.

Looks like UCSD's loss is UWM's gain (if UWM had enough sense to leave the vacated position empty - and with Walker at the helm, I'd say chances are better 'n' good).


"a vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion."

Good ridance.

-signed,

Wisconsin taxpayer

Sure, if it makes you feel better.

More of the big business-model of university management that was made popular in Reagan era.
----------

That's a interesting irrelevant stretch. How'd you get there? Better yet,what support do you have for such a comment?

Lots of years in a bunch of universities.

Bob liberals don't need facts to support their comments

Had he'll getting a degree, huh?

You really need to go back further and kick Chris Columbus in the nuts for even bringing the white man to the America's.

The Reagan era model did not call for the extremes seen today in some situations. It called for paying someone according to what they contributed to the success of the organization. This seems to be a good idea gone crazy. This is not unlike many similar programs that started out as worthy ideas but became grotesque when applied to extremes.

Mining schools beat Harvard

Exactly. Just like big business has top CEOs being paid ridiculous money with huge parachutes attached. It was all well intended, and then got out of hand. Big time.

Private business = private dollars.

Education = public dollars.

It's really not difficult.

in other words, the business model sucks for University management - we agree.

Diversity is fraud.

I know at least one, no make that two, California university graduates that are not idiots.

In the only words, they're non-comperable. Quit worrying 'bout "the other guy", and focus on what's relevant.

Put another way, there isn't a damn thing the public can (or should) be able to do in influencing private business affairs - other than choose to subsidize, or not. In matters of public affairs, the taxpayer not only has the ability, they have a duty to effect the affiars of public institutions.

For far too long the inmates have been running the assylym. There's a new sheriff in town, and he drinks TEA.

affect not effect.

you must be a UC product, eh

Again, quit worrying 'bout the other guy.

It's having a bad effect.

You are learning - little grasshopper

tuition free too

Stay secure in thinking it's 'bout a spelling lesson.

*sippp, ahhhh*

Good coffee this mornin'.

This isn't a CEO and it isn't a company. This is a corrupt, unaccountable political entity. The kind that liberals favor. Institutionalized theft.

You don't like the way a company pays it's help? Don't buy from them, get on their board and change them, or compete with them.

Taxpayers/serfs have no such remedies for out-of-control bureaucracies.

At this stage, I agree, but it's 'bout to change - and in my lifetime.

Using tax dollars to buy votes is going the way of the dinosaur, as is the current system of decision making in publicly-funded education. You take our money - you do it our way.

The compensation of top executives of private firms is the business of the stockholders and boards of directors. Their pay is not coming out of taxpayer pockets.

maybe someone that speaks to that idiot Brent, could tell him that Reagan is no longer President, and this event is current.

The pay comes out of stockholder pockets just like it University presidents' pay come out of taxpayer profits. Very symmetrical in that way. Ditto coach salaries.

If you think university administrators are overpaid, what do you think of coaches for football and basketball?

How much should the president of a university with, oh, let's say a $1B annual budget maybe 7K employees and 35K students be paid? What number would you feel is fair and honest?

You really can't read, can you?

Historical artifacts are historical artifacts. Are you saying we live in a history-free world? Oh yeah, you really are that stupid.

How much money does a major football program make? How many people does it employ? How many businesses are impacted by a major football program?

"a vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion" is a bunch of crap - even more so at $250,000.

If you don't like your compensation package, leave your taxpayer-funded security blanket and try the free market; that experience will tell you what you are REALLY worth.

Stuborn refusal to accept that private industry, and public institutions are not comperable.

Mining schools beat Harvard because mining schools are "stuck" in reality. Their future is secure.


Reality is coming to the ethereal disconnected ivory tower, and then BrentD will get a chance to see what fancy ad hominems bring in the real world market place.

Had another thought.

Since the chosen arguement for pay is based on comparing public, to private enterprise - let's accept that.

Private business will hold total compensation to a percentage of profit. Game on.

You ducked the question.

Since when does business hold compensation to a precentage of profit?

But before you answer that, answer my first quesion. How much do you think such a university president should make?

I'll have to catch up later.

Diversity is death.

I took my son on a tour of a major California university this summer. We never saw the computer lab but we did get to see where the vegan cafeteria was and heard more about diversity and inclusion than I could stomach. We happened to be out there so we thought what the heck let's go see one.

The girl giving the tour sounded functionally illiterate and it chapped my butt to think she probably was there on a full ride.

Can you explain what you mean by 'taxpayer profits'?

Always, and those who don't aren't around long. So, I accept you're insistance that public compensation be modeled after the private sector.



Depends on the training and track record. If the training and record indicate the intentional seeking to increase public dollars taken in on a pr/student basis (that'd be all of 'em) - then they're unemployed.

If the training, and record indicate intentionally seeking to reduce public dollars taken in on a pr/student basis (welcome to the future) - as much as they want to to say, "I'll take the job".

Now Brent, I'm just sure you meant to say...."stockholder profits" and
....."taxpayer pockets"....

It really grates on me to see put any other way

Zactly, Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic as well.....you silly mofo.

And pots will call kettles black!

As a Canadian I would bring more diversity, I should get the job.

Your lack of caps and question mark indicates same.

............

An awfully hard reach methinks. And since it would be libs in charge of the whole decision process and the university, why are they following a long dead Republican president's big business model anyhoo? Is it because their hands haven't had a chance to smack themselves in their foreheads and realize it?

500K max . There are way too many bureaucrats in a layer over the people that do the actual grunt work(teachers. There job is to keep the university afloat , to make sure that students are properly taught by qualified individuals and to ensure the university is seen in the best possible light.

in that case her salary should be zero....or maybe she should have to write a check.

How do think an incompetent like BO got elected?

In the private sector if there are no profits there is no executive compensation and pretty soon there are no executives and eventually no business.

I am truly amazed by the lack of appreciation for and the lack of understanding of Capitalism on this supposedly Conservative forum. I guess it is a product of Government schools.

Ever hear of a company called MCI they were losing their ass and their CEO got a bonus of $30,000,000. No there are gross problems in both the public and private sectors.

But $250,000 to a race industry employee is a stretch. Because in the university setting you can bet there's a hell of a retirement that goes with that.

At the present state of USA education.....I'd say that a university president's salary along with the teacher's salaries would be overpaid at present minimum wage rates!

A company can pay huge bonuses and high salaries while losing money if they have large reserves of cash and other assets without making a profit for some, maybe many years, depending on the amount of those reserves. How those reserves are spent is the decision of the board of directors. If it wants to piss it away on bonuses instead of putting it into plant and equipment so be it. No problem, but you might want to sell your stock (I would).

However, once those reserves are depleted and not replenished with profit the company goes bankrupt. This is a management issue not a Government issue and should be of no concern to anyone except the stockholders of that private company. In the normal course of events the company's stock would plummet and it would have difficulty raising capital because it doesn't have taxing power or a money printing press and it would cease to exist.

Fact is those bonuses should have to be voted on by the share holders not a bunch of back slapping good ole boys.

I'm a card carrying Capitalist.

That's great! Those kids better save their money while they are making it. Hard to think of a more boom and bust career than mining, esp. hard-rock metal mining.

More power to them while it's booming!

Sycamore

BrentD, the use of big business models for running universities is not a problem in itself. When applied properly and effectively on behalf of students and the overall health of the university, the business type model by far surpasses any archaic "collegial" and faculty-controlled models that have crippled the ability to innovate and improve at many institutions - and I did yet not mention inefficiency. Now, I have. Due to "academic models", many college/university presidents today are mere figureheads - gutless wonders spouting political correctness and providing little or no leadership for productive change.

This ugly and outrageous situation at UCSD has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any big business model - a model eschewed by the UC system and its many feckless CEOs - and has everyting to do with political correctness and liberal agendas run amok. This kind of activity is a slap in the face to the public and the taxpayers who fund these shenanigans. Any true scholar (are there any left?) would be embarrassed by such egregious behavior and any scholar with a bit of courage would call it out for what it is. How many faculty at UCSD have done so?

Hey - you live in the middle of this slop - and you want to try to blame this stupididty on a "business model"?

Well put.

'spect there's a lot of homosexuals in this deal, who tend to be educated, agenda-driven and not so much occupied with the business of raising a family that distracts most of us. Pretty much "diversity" and "homosexual" almost always go in the same paragraph anymore.

Not being "phobic", just making an observation.

As for faculty objecting, I expect the productive ones are a) very busy already without spending extra time protesting issues like this and b)aware of all the various and sundry forms retribution against them could take in an environment like that.

I'd like to say this sort of thing was confined to the public sector, but I have a buddy who worked aircraft maintenance at at Boeing here and he had to deal with this sort of crap on the shop floor all the time. But then again Boeing does get government contracts and perhaps doesn't have so much competition in the usual sense of the word.

Birdwatcher

They should just quite hiding their agenda and ban white males from admission to UCSD. It would be a lot cheaper and the other students wouldn't have to compete against those white devils. Besides, with their white male privilege they don't need college degrees, they can just go start companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook.

That thing about Harvard grads making less than mining school grads probably doesn't apply ten or even five years out.

Ditto

Those back-slapping goood ole boys were elected by the shareholders. If the shareholders don't like the results, they can vote in a different board of directors.

Maybe for the Mining Engineers, but I bet the Chem E's hold their edge for quite a while.

Of course, all bets are off, if one the the Harvard Dads loans Jr. $10 million to "get a start" in bidness!

Sycamore