July was an exceptionally hot month in San Diego: Boardwalks were teeming with brazen bikinied babes and youngsters covered in the aftermath of melted ice cream cones. Sunburns at the local pool were as plentiful as children running into the fray of jetting sprinklers. But nowhere was the heat more turned up in July than our very own campus.
On July 12, the California State University Board of Trustees agreed on a $50,000 raise for our new president, Dr. Elliot Hirshman, thereby securing him as the most paid president in the CSU system. Only minutes before, the CSU Board of Trustees approved a 12 percent fee increase for San Diego State students. Calling it bad timing was akin to calling the Hindenburg a lovely bonfire.
Students were outraged. Newspapers carried the headline nationwide. Gov. Jerry Brown wrote an open letter noting his dissatisfaction with the board’s decision. State senators scrambled to draft legislation preventing similar situations from ever happening again. And I wrote a column.
I believed the fee increase and corresponding $50,000 raise was an attack on hardworking students — those of us working two or three jobs to afford tuition, rent and other necessities. I was critical of the fact that simply stepping into the Office of the President seemed deserving of a raise, especially in light of California’s devastated economy and our already-weakened educational system.
But while national news publications painted a target on Hirshman’s back, I felt he was merely the CSU Board of Trustees’ ill-fated whipping boy. Instead, I highlighted his potential to do great things for our campus — and responsibility to donate his first year’s raise to the school.
“Know this: Receiving this bonus during a time of such strife for us students has done nothing to further any respect or devotion to you,” I said. “It has done nothing to reach across the aisle. And it says nothing about who you are, aside from subtly suggesting you’re in it only for the money. But donating a year’s (raise) to the school … that would mean something.”
Then, in an impressive display of generosity last Wednesday, Hirshman proved his commitment to the university and its students. Together with his wife Jeri, Hirshman donated $100,000 to “The Campaign for SDSU,” the first ever university-wide fundraising campaign to be hosted here at SDSU. In that move, he won my approval — and hopefully yours, too — as the primary leader on campus. I’m anything but Hirshman’s PR agent, but I see this move as the first of many positive things Hirshman is going to do for this university. And I believe his efforts to expand funding and research for SDSU is only the beginning.
So too would I like to congratulate the others who made contributions: Charles and Chin-Yeh Hostler, who donated $100,000 to the College of Arts and Letters; Steve Cushman, who donated $100,000 to the College of Business Administration; the anonymous patron who donated $300,000 for Guardian Scholars scholarships; Irwin Zahn, who donated $500,000 for entrepreneurship in engineering; and finally, the $500,000 donation from Sharp HealthCare.
The only disappointment I carry is that while Hirshman’s raise attracted national news coverage, his $100,000 donation received little to no recognition. Too often, people are quick to criticize and less hurried to give praise. In this case, let me be the first: Hirshman, thank you for your contribution to this campus. If this is truly a sign for what’s to come, our university has a good few years ahead of it.
