大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)該拿天價(jià)薪水嗎？

Gregory Fenves recently got a big promotion, fromprovost to president of the University of Texas atAustin. A raise came with it. Instead of his currentbase of about $425,000, he was offered $1 million.

格雷戈里·范韋斯(Gregory Fenves)最近晉升要職，從德州大學(xué)奧斯汀分校(University of Texas at Austin)教務(wù)長(zhǎng)升任校長(zhǎng)。此次升職是包含加薪的。他目前的基礎(chǔ)薪俸約為42.5萬(wàn)美元(約合263萬(wàn)元人民幣)，校方開(kāi)出100萬(wàn)美元。

And he rejected it — as too much.

但他拒絕了——理由是太高。

“With many issues and concerns about administrative costs, affordability and tuition, such asalary will affect the ability of the president to work with the Texas Legislature,” Fenves wroteto a university official, in an email obtained by The Austin American-Statesman and publishedlast week.

“鑒于對(duì)行政支出、負(fù)擔(dān)能力、學(xué)費(fèi)等諸多問(wèn)題的擔(dān)憂與考量，這樣的薪俸將影響校長(zhǎng)與德州議會(huì)(TexasLegislature)的合作，”范韋斯在一封致某大學(xué)官員的電子郵件中寫(xiě)道，該信由《奧斯汀美國(guó)政治家》(TheAustin American-Statesman)獲得，并于上周刊發(fā)。

He suggested, and agreed to, $750,000.

最終他提議并接受了75萬(wàn)美元。

That’s hardly chump change. But in the context of the shockingly lucrative deals that havebecome almost commonplace among college presidents, the sum — or, more precisely, thesentiment behind it — is worthy of note and praise.

這當(dāng)然不算是一筆小數(shù)目。但相比在大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)中已經(jīng)司空見(jiàn)慣的天價(jià)合約，它——或者更準(zhǔn)確的說(shuō)，它所透露的觀念——是值得留意和稱贊的。

Another of those deals came to light late Tuesday night, when The Wall Street Journal reportedthat Yale University had paid its former president, Richard Levin, an “additional retirementbenefit” of $8.5 million after he retired from his post in 2013. The Journal characterized this asan “unprecedented lump-sum payment” for a college president and noted that Levin’s annualcompensation package during his final years at Yale was already over $1 million.

周二深夜，《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》(The Wall Street Journal)曝光了另一份類似的合約，2013年理查德·萊文(Richard Levin)卸任后，耶魯大學(xué)(Yale University)向這位校長(zhǎng)支付了一筆850萬(wàn)美元的“額外退休金”。《日?qǐng)?bào)》形容這筆一次總付的退休金在大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)中是“前所未有的”，并指出萊文在執(zhí)掌耶魯?shù)淖詈髱啄昀?，年薪已?jīng)在100萬(wàn)美元以上。

All in all, few presidents give adequate thought to the symbolism and dissonance ofextraordinarily generous salaries, which are in sync with this era of lavish executive pay andglaring income inequality but out of line with the ostensible mission of academia.

總的來(lái)說(shuō)，很少有大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)充分考慮到，這些令人咋舌的高薪有怎樣的象征意義，看上去會(huì)有多么刺眼，它們和這個(gè)時(shí)代對(duì)企業(yè)高管的慷慨以及觸目驚心的貧富差距是相符的，但卻與學(xué)術(shù)界聲言的使命相去甚遠(yuǎn)。

Ideally, higher education is dedicated to values different from those that govern Wall Streetand corporate America. It supposedly calls students to more soulful concerns, even tosacrifice.

按理說(shuō)，高等教育的價(jià)值觀應(yīng)該有別于華爾街和美國(guó)企業(yè)界。它本應(yīng)將學(xué)子引向更高尚的追求，甚至是犧牲。

But that message is muddled when some of the people who run colleges wallow in paymentsand perks that would once have been considered vulgar.

然而，當(dāng)一些大學(xué)的管理者享受著曾被斥為鄙俗的高薪和待遇時(shí)，學(xué)生們看在眼里會(huì)感到困惑。

For E. Gordon Gee’s final year as the president of Ohio State University, which he left in 2013,he got a package of more than $6 million, as was widely reported. It was a one-time bonanza,including deferred payments and severance, but he’d earned roughly $2 million annually overthe previous years.

俄亥俄州立大學(xué)(Ohio State University)校長(zhǎng)E·戈登·吉(E. Gordon Gee)于2013年卸任，任內(nèi)最后一年他的薪俸超過(guò)了600萬(wàn)美元，當(dāng)時(shí)媒體廣為報(bào)道。那是一次性支付的獎(jiǎng)酬，包括了延期付款和遣散費(fèi)，但此前幾年里，他的年薪已經(jīng)在200萬(wàn)美元上下。

The Chronicle of Higher Education analyzed salary information for private colleges from 2012,the most recent year available, and found that Shirley Ann Jackson, the president ofRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received a package worth over $7 million.

《高等教育紀(jì)事報(bào)》(The Chronicle of Higher Education)分析了2012年私立大學(xué)的薪俸信息，也就是現(xiàn)有數(shù)據(jù)所及的最近一年，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)倫斯勒理工學(xué)院(Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)院長(zhǎng)雪利·安·杰克遜(Shirley Ann Jackson)拿到了超過(guò)700萬(wàn)美元的薪俸。

John L. Lahey of Quinnipiac University: about $3.75 million. Lee Bollinger of Columbia University:almost $3.4 million.

昆尼皮亞克大學(xué)(Quinnipiac University)的約翰·L·雷希(John L. Lahey)：約375萬(wàn)美元。哥倫比亞大學(xué)(Columbia University)的李·鮑林杰(Lee Bollinger)：將近340萬(wàn)美元。

Fenves’s salary as the president of the University of Texas puts him well behind that of hiscounterpart at Texas A & M University, who has an annual base of $1 million plus$400,000 in additional compensation, according to The American-Statesman.

據(jù)《美國(guó)政治家》的報(bào)道，范韋斯作為德州大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)的工資要比德州農(nóng)工大學(xué)(Texas A&M University)校長(zhǎng)低很多，后者的基礎(chǔ)年薪是100萬(wàn)美元，外加40萬(wàn)美元的額外報(bào)酬。

Each profligate compensation package breeds more like it, as schools’ trustees convincethemselves that they must keep pace in order to recruit, retain and receive the precious fairydust of the heaviest hitters.

每出現(xiàn)一個(gè)漫天高價(jià)的薪酬包，都會(huì)促使更多的學(xué)校跟進(jìn)。校董們認(rèn)定，要想招募、挽留最搶手人才，并領(lǐng)受其恩澤，他們必須跟上時(shí)代的步伐。

They reason that “this is a winner-take-all society and that people with extremely high levels oftalent are richly rewarded,” said Richard Vedder, the director of the Center for CollegeAffordability and Productivity.

他們的理由是，“這是個(gè)成王敗寇的社會(huì)，具備最頂尖才能的人要得到豐厚的回報(bào)，”大學(xué)學(xué)費(fèi)與績(jī)效中心(Center for College Affordability and Productivity)主任理查德·韋德(Richard Vedder)說(shuō)。

“But I think that things are getting out of hand, especially given the tax-exempt nature ofuniversities,” he told me. “They’re in privileged positions, and they were given these privilegedpositions not to enrich themselves but to serve society. These presidents are expected to livequite nicely but not exorbitantly and not extravagantly.”

“但我認(rèn)為現(xiàn)在有些失控了，尤其是考慮到大學(xué)的免稅待遇，”他對(duì)我說(shuō)。“他們是享受著特權(quán)的，而之所以給他們特權(quán)，不是為了讓他們逐利，是要他們服務(wù)社會(huì)。這些校長(zhǎng)理應(yīng)過(guò)上優(yōu)越的生活，但不能這么窮奢極欲。”

Their extravagance strikes an especially discordant note in light of the challenges confrontinghigher education today, and it undercuts their moral authority.

在高等教育面臨嚴(yán)峻挑戰(zhàn)的今天，他們的奢侈無(wú)度尤顯不協(xié)調(diào)，并且有損他們的道德威嚴(yán)。

How do you defend the transfer of teaching responsibilities to low-paid, part-time adjunctswhen the president is sitting so pretty? How do you cut administrative costs, which indeed needcutting? How do you explain steep tuition increases, mammoth student debt and the failure toadmit more children from poor families?

一個(gè)錦衣玉食的校長(zhǎng)，該如何解釋將教學(xué)責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)給低薪的兼職教授的舉措?如何下手削減行政開(kāi)支——盡管的確有削減的必要?你如何解釋學(xué)費(fèi)的暴漲，巨額學(xué)生債，無(wú)法接收更多窮人家的孩子?

How do you summon students back to the liberal arts and away from mercenary priorities?

你如何呼吁學(xué)生們放棄唯利是圖的專業(yè)方向，重拾對(duì)文科的興趣?

The high salaries are frequently defended on the grounds that a university president’s job is allconsuming. But if it is, how do so many of them find time to serve, for hundreds of thousandsof extra dollars, on corporate boards? Rensselaer’s Jackson was at one point on five boardssimultaneously.

大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)的工作極為繁重，這也是給他們開(kāi)出高薪的一個(gè)常見(jiàn)理由。但如果真的如此，為什么還有那么多校長(zhǎng)進(jìn)入企業(yè)董事會(huì)，額外再賺上幾十萬(wàn)美元?倫斯勒的杰克遜一度身兼五家企業(yè)的董事。

The high salaries are also defended in terms of the fund-raising that certain presidentsreputedly excel at, covering their compensation many times over. But do they deserve solecredit for those donations? And at nonprofit institutions, should money be the main yardstickand currency? Shouldn’t ethics compete with economics, as they sometimes do when a schoolinvests its endowment?

高薪的另一個(gè)理由是某些校長(zhǎng)被認(rèn)為格外擅長(zhǎng)籌款，比起他們?yōu)閷W(xué)校籌措到的資金，他們的薪水只是個(gè)零頭。但是爭(zhēng)取到那些捐款的功勞，應(yīng)該記在他們一個(gè)人頭上嗎?在一個(gè)非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)，金錢(qián)應(yīng)該成為主要衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和通貨嗎?難道不應(yīng)該將倫理置于和經(jīng)濟(jì)同等的地位來(lái)考慮?要知道有時(shí)候?qū)W校在決定如何用捐贈(zèng)基金投資時(shí)，就會(huì)這樣考慮。

The lofty pay of college presidents is part of higher education’s increasingly corporate bent, ofthe blurred lines between the campus and the marketplace.

高等教育越來(lái)越有企業(yè)的作派，校園和市場(chǎng)的界線漸漸模糊，校長(zhǎng)的高薪就是其中一個(gè)表現(xiàn)。

And like the private enrichment of many political candidates who speak of “public service,” it’snot just a mirror of our pervasive money culture. It’s a green light for it, from precincts ofprinciple where a flashing yellow would be more appropriate.

和許多一邊說(shuō)著“公共服務(wù)”一邊攬聚私人財(cái)富的政治候選人一樣，它不只是四處蔓延的金錢(qián)文化的映照。它是在給這種文化開(kāi)綠燈，而在這個(gè)固守志節(jié)的界域中，理應(yīng)不斷閃動(dòng)的是一盞黃燈。