… who a few months ago wrote an excoriation of Brown’s president for the disrepute she brought to the school through her seat on the board of Goldman Sachs. (UD featured his opinion piece here.) Liebling wrote with the confidence, clarity, and ethical maturity most writers twice his age (nineteen) lack.
Liebling wrote to UD today, linking her to a New York Times article about the controversy at Brown. An excerpt from the article:
For Dr. Simmons, the controversy is not going away …quietly. Even though she said last month that she had decided not to stand for re-election to the board at the annual shareholders meeting later this year, some of her critics say she never should have taken the job at Goldman to begin with — and that she certainly should not have accepted so much money.
How much money?
A spot on a board, particularly at a moneymaker like Goldman, used to be considered a plum job. The demands were relatively modest compared with the rewards. Dr. Simmons, for instance, was paid $323,539 last year for her work on the board, and will soon leave her position at Goldman with stock that is currently worth about $4.3 million. That was on top of her salary at Brown, which was $576,000 this year.
Less of a plum now, what with all the public attention …
But anyway – here’s what’s wonderful:
Simon Liebling, a sophomore from Highland Park, N.J., got tongues wagging on College Hill when he criticized Dr. Simmons in The Daily Herald.
“Most people agreed with my basic point that this brought shame on the university,” Mr. Liebling, 19, said during an interview in a coffee shop at the center of campus. “It has been taken by most people to be outrageous.”
Bravo, Liebling.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:01PM
UD, are you *always* opposed to university presidents serving on corporate boards, or is the concern here more situational?
I personally think it’s legitimate as long as:
1)The individual does not serve on more than 1 or 2 boards
2)He/she actually has knowledge/experience relevant to whatever it is that the company does
Also, the individual should be committed enough to the board job to stick around if things get difficult. I’m personally aware of a professor who was a company board member who resigned when things started to get very nasty between the chairman and the CEO…which was exactly the point in time at which his contribution could have been most valuable.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:05PM
david: I think it’s a terrific idea for university presidents to serve on non-profit boards.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:15PM
David,
Our former medical school dean served on the board of Pepsi-Cola.
As far as I know she was not on any other boards.
Without even going into the amount of remuneration, do you think that this behavior brought shame on the University of Minnesota?
If you would like more information, please see:
http://ptable.blogspot.com/2007/03/bigu-medschooldean-sits-on-pepsi-board.html
Bill Gleason, University of Minnesota
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:07PM
Bill…no, I don’t think that serving on the PepsiCo board brings shame on the individual or her institution. I personally don’t drink much Coke or Pepsi, or eat very many Fritos, though I do sometimes use PepsiCo’s Quaker Oats products…but these are not inherently harmful products and individuals can make their own judgments about whether & how much of them to consume.
If I were looking for something that genuinely brings shame on universities, I’d be more inclined to look at those professors who support Castro and/or who make excuses for Palestian terrorism, and at those administrators who use “speech codes” and various forms of indoctrination to suppress diversity of opinion.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:17PM
OK, I can’t stay silent on this. Ruth is an old friend, and I know her to be someone of tremendous personal integrity. As university presidents go, she has substantial financial acumen which she displayed at Princeton (as associate provost), Smith, and now Brown. We might debate the logic of Goldmine Sachs choosing to compensate its board the way it did, but the assertion that Ruth Simmons is doing something shady or unethical is untenable. This is very much manufactured outrage against a very talented, straightforward, and honest person. It’s a very different situation from that of the president of Suffolk wringing the school dry on behalf of himself and his cronies.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:36PM
Your good comment, Polish Peter, moves me to be as precise as possible about what I and others consider to be the problems here.
1. You write about “the logic of Goldmine Sachs choosing to compensate its board the way it did,” but there are two players here. A person, under any compensation situation, is free to decide that the compensation is too high, and to take a smaller amount. (The last president of GW, who was very overpaid, always explained, when challenged about his compensation, that he had nothing to do with it — the board of trustees forced it on him…)
2. Even if we decide that we’re free market absolutists and that no compensation for anything could ever be called too high, the other problem involves Simmons not anticipating the way her serving on that particular board might reflect upon Brown.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:02PM
To David: you wrote “I’d be more inclined to look at those professors who support Castro and/or who make excuses for Palestian terrorism”.
Why those targets? I’d look at professors who support ANY governmental official or activity in the classroom. Just teach.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:15PM
David-
Let’s just say it is debatable whether Coke or Pepsi are “not inherently harmful products.” Research at our ex-dean’s own medical school – and many other places – suggests that they are harmful.
Bill
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:24AM
1. It’s good for university presidents to know about how the rest of the world operates. (Also, of course, to meet rich people — a big part of their job.)
2. Universities are large, complex institutions — a rule of thumb I’ve heard is that because of their complexity they’re equivalent to companies ten times larger — with extensive research activities and international reach, so their CEO’s do not necessarily lack knowledge and skills relevant to corporate boards.
3. University presidents on corporate boards tend to wind up on audit and compensation committees because they’re outside directors.
4. Should professors feel comfortable teaching at universities that have business executives on their own boards? Not that they have much choice!
February 14th, 2011 at 6:26PM
The inclusion of the president of brown is mere window dressing as are many of the hires @ Goldman to obfuscate their ferocious appettite for $ at all cost. they epitomize the lowest link in the capital food chain , while masquerading as legitimate indeed “leaders of america”any and every trade that makes their prop desk money trumps eats and consumes all. Watch the old movie the blob with steve mcqueen
they pulled off the greatest theft of our lifetime and now wallow ion their billions of profits while state local and city gov are forced to decimate their pensiuons and social programs