CUNY Backs Down (Way Down) on Petraeus (Updated)

by Corey Robin on July 16, 2013

The New York Times is reporting that CUNY is backing down—way down—on its Petraeus hire.

It was supposed to be a feather in the cap for the City University of New York’s ambitious honors college. Or perhaps a careful first step back into public life for a leader sidelined by scandal.

One way or another, the news that David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director and commander of the allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be a visiting professor at the Macaulay Honors College at CUNY this coming academic year was supposed to be great publicity all around.

Instead it turned into a minor scandal all its own, as some professors and politicians expressed outrage over his six-figure salary, and others accused the university’s administration of lying about just what the salary was.

On Monday, it was announced that Mr. Petraeus would, on second thought, teach for just $1.

This is a huge victory, one that as of this morning I did not think was quite possible.  All of you who sent emails and signed petitions should be proud. If this blog contributed one iota to this effort—if all of us did indeed just save CUNY $149,999 to $199,999—I could not be more pleased. I hope that that money can now be put to a good cause: increasing the salary of Research Foundation employees by 3%, providing full tuition wavers for 26 students or books and other supplies to 120 students, or any of the other many needs of our faculty, students, and staff that have been identified in recent weeks.

While many questions about the scandal remain, I hope that we can soon begin to discuss the real issues at CUNY that this scandal has exposed: that most of our classes are taught by adjuncts who are woefully underpaid and disrespected; that we have a university administration that seems to put the glitz and glitter of celebrity hires, drawn from the higher circles of power, ahead of excellence and equity; and that we are a cash-starved institution that needs resources and competent leaders rather than austerity and starstruck administrators.

Update (11:30 pm)

Gawker’s JK Trotter has begun to tweet some of the contents of the extensive email correspondence between Petraeus and CUNY Dean Ann Kirschner. Apparently they spent much of their spring drafting an oped about CUNY’s Macaulay Honors College that they hoped to get placed in the New York Times.  You really have to read the emails yourself to get the full effect, but here’s a little teaser. All of the ellipses are in the original:

We are particularly proud to be associated with Macaulay, which this year…

Indeed, each year has seen further steps forward for the college and the students who have earned a place in it…

And it is our hope, that together with the talented faculty, staff, and students of Macaulay that…

Can you work with that, Ann (and incorporate some of the great thoughts you express above)?

All best – Dave

Were I to re-title this post, I’d call it “Great Thoughts.”

{ 48 comments }

1

Anderson 07.16.13 at 1:13 am

Good work! Persuasion DOES work sometimes.

2

HH 07.16.13 at 1:21 am

No doubt CUNY could invoke the streaker’s defence: it seemed like a good idea at the time. But, really, what were they thinking?

3

marcel 07.16.13 at 2:06 am

1) I misunderstood/mis-read HH’s comment at first and thought that perhaps someone had threatened to streak the class. Would have been a nice idea, esp. if the streaker were named Broadwell.

2) So Cory, when can we expect a victory lap or a TD dance, or something like that? I want it posted to youtube, with a link here.

4

js. 07.16.13 at 2:07 am

Congrats!

5

marcel 07.16.13 at 2:08 am

And please pull my last comment out of moderation hell. It doesn’t merit that. This one may be disemvoweled afterwards, though, just to keep you guys in practice.

6

Alan 07.16.13 at 3:49 am

Corey (again, if I may) unlike few of us you can look in the mirror and say “I made a difference”. I toast you when I next time have a glass in my hand!! Well done.

7

ChrisTS 07.16.13 at 4:34 am

Fabulous news. Congratulations – and thanks – to all who brought this travesty into public view and, so, stopped it.

8

ChrisTS 07.16.13 at 4:35 am

By the way, what is “extreme stature”? Ugh.

9

nvalvo 07.16.13 at 4:45 am

I think we’ll hear quietly in a few days that he’s not actually teaching the class.

10

Andrew F. 07.16.13 at 5:20 am

This is Petraeus deciding that the fight is not worth any risk at all to his public reputation – and in fact, teaching for $1 at CUNY might just burnish his reputation.

Now, what will happen next time CUNY wants to pay a visiting professor 150k to teach two seminars?

Has this affair simply raised the price tag for a public figure to accept a temporary teaching position at CUNY?

If so – and I suspect it has – will this help the students? I suspect not.

CUNY has gained 149,999.00. Well done. But we have no idea what it may have lost.

11

Walt 07.16.13 at 5:41 am

Andrew F, your descent into self-parody is complete. Congratulations.

12

DBake 07.16.13 at 5:50 am

CUNY has gained 149,999.00. Well done. But we have no idea what it may have lost.

We have no idea what it is. Better spend 149,999 on it!

13

speranza 07.16.13 at 5:51 am

well, he did stop just short of rhetorically asking “Is $1 in fact less than $200,000? Who can say for sure?”

14

John Quiggin 07.16.13 at 6:01 am

I was speculating that Andrew F had spent the last week doing a refresher course at Troll Training School. It looks as if they spent too much on celebrity lecturers.

15

adam.smith 07.16.13 at 6:32 am

If now those 150k could be spend to raise the salaries of CUNY’s normal adjuncts to something a little more living-wagey than 3k…

16

Colin Danby 07.16.13 at 6:48 am

” teaching for $1 at CUNY might just burnish his reputation”

Everybody’s a winner!

If his reputation needs any *more* burnishing, give me a call! — we’ve got a couple sections of Intro to IR that need covering and the budget’s tighter than a tick.

17

pedant 07.16.13 at 6:58 am

What you did was important and worthwhile, and thanks for doing it.

On the other hand, I suspect this turn of events just reflects an arrangement to shovel money from a donor to Petraeus under the table or through some other cut-out. He’s not going to do this for free, or even for $1. The money will makes its way to him one way or another.

That way CUNY gets its moose-head, Petraeus gets a veil of respectability, the donor gets to schmooze with a general, and the general gets 200k. The administrators at CUNY still get their access to money and celebrity, and can continue to screw over actual faculty.

Still, I am glad you stood up.

18

Chaz 07.16.13 at 7:56 am

Huzzah!

19

Z 07.16.13 at 8:48 am

Twice in recent times has the administration of CUNY backed down due to the incredible courage and commitment of its faculties, starting with Corey here. Kudos to them!

20

R. Johnston 07.16.13 at 8:51 am

No doubt CUNY could invoke the streaker’s defence: it seemed like a good idea at the time. But, really, what were they thinking?

They were thinking that for spending $150,000-200000 on a semester of Petraeus they could attract wingnut donations in a greater amount. They weren’t thinking at all about negative publicity and the donations they might forgo by being fucking stupid.

21

Bruce Wilder 07.16.13 at 9:24 am

Don’t you think Petraeus will come to town, give a couple of $100,000 speeches to business groups, and all will go on, as before?

My so-far-unconfirmed hypothesis would be that CUNY was just signaling its willingness to launder funds for billionaires wanting to give someone a bit of academic prestige along with a gratuity. Plenty of funnels for that purpose, and if CUNY combines the P.R. of making some “public servant” a $1/year man, with some other delivery channel for the bucks, CUNY might have discovered a winning formula, which can be repeated.

22

Ronan(rf) 07.16.13 at 9:28 am

“CUNY has gained 149,999.00. Well done. But we have no idea what it may have lost.”

I don’t know Andrew, I suspect a seminar by Petraeus (so long as that’s not way above price for a comparable figure) for $1 is worth the price. Assuming a seminar of 20 students, that’s a truly great opportunity for those 20 students, at the cost of 5p per student. Also, the CUNY budget is 2.3 billion a year!!!! I really dont think this fee is going to bankrupt the university. In fact…..

23

ajay 07.16.13 at 9:50 am

CUNY has gained 149,999.00. Well done.

If you manage to get a thing for $1 that was previously priced at $150,000, you have not, in fact, “gained” $149,999. You have lost $1 and you have gained a thing. If I buy a neo-Georgian fireplace from the Governor of Virginia for $200,000 rather than $400,000, I haven’t gained $200k; I’ve lost $200k and gained an entirely useless fireplace that I don’t need.

This is something that Andrew F should understand before he is let anywhere near, for example, the January sales.

24

Phil 07.16.13 at 10:39 am

Unless of course CUNY had already secured $150k from third parties on the understanding that it was going to Petraeus. You might think this would make no difference, as the third parties would now be asking for their money back (less $1). But suppose that CUNY was under no legal obligation to return it, perhaps because there were no records saying where the money had come from and what specifically it was intended to pay for. If a donor had thought it wise or appropriate to accompany their donation with a covering letter written in broad general terms – provision of xx, advancement of yy, you know the sort of thing – then CUNY would in fact be $149,999 up on the deal at this point in time.

I just hope the academics see some of it.

25

Walt 07.16.13 at 10:47 am

Oh, ajay. Can’t you see? CUNY has lost the respect of Andrew F and everyone like him. They can never get that back.

26

Katherine 07.16.13 at 11:44 am

Has this affair simply raised the price tag for a public figure to accept a temporary teaching position at CUNY?

Previous price tag – $150,000 – $200,000. Current price tag – $1. How does this raise the price tag again?

27

pedant 07.16.13 at 12:00 pm

It turns out that Andrew F was Richard Carstone all along.

28

Barry 07.16.13 at 12:48 pm

“This is something that Andrew F should understand before he is let anywhere near, for example, the January sales.”

As I said before, I’d love to play poker with Andrew (‘I’ve got $1,000 to bet, and a bad hand. But I can’t think of anything to do with my $1,000 except to Bet It All Right Now On This Hand!’).

29

jonnybutter 07.16.13 at 1:45 pm

@17 “On the other hand, I suspect this turn of events just reflects an arrangement to shovel money from a donor to Petraeus under the table or through some other cut-out. ”

Could be. But I’d say it makes a difference which ‘cut-out’ is used even if the money paid to the General is the same amount and from the same donor(s). The previous situation was not only a typical grease-job, but it also hurt CUNY and the idea of public education itself.

Congrats to everyone who got interested in and pissed off about this.

30

AcademicLurker 07.16.13 at 2:12 pm

I’m not even sure that this was a conscious shakedown on the parts of Petraeus and the relevant administrators at CUNY.

The idea that the already rich and connected are entitled to lavish amounts of $$$ just for bothering to show up is now considered so natural in so many quarters that the CUNY admins probably didn’t think twice about it. I’m guessing they were genuinely taken by surprise when it turned into a scandal.

31

jonnybutter 07.16.13 at 4:05 pm

The idea that the already rich and connected are entitled to lavish amounts of $$$ just for bothering to show up is now considered so natural…that the CUNY admins probably didn’t think twice about it.

Yes, indeed. So the bible says, and it still is news.

32

Bill Benzon 07.16.13 at 8:30 pm

So, it was never REALLY about the money, was it? I’ll buy that. That $200K, down to $150K, was one of those signal things economists like to talk about these days. It was a signal of how very good Petraeus is at whatever it is that he does and just how good the Macaulay Honors College is. Just all around goodness.

That dollar-a-year thing is also one of those signal things. Here Petraeus gets to invoke nobless oblige and WWI, WWII, and the Korean War. Here’s what the Wikipedia says about dollar-a-year-men:

The “dollar-a-year men” were business and government executives who helped the government mobilize and manage American industry during periods of war, especially World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. U.S. law forbids the government from accepting the services of unpaid volunteers. Those employed by the government had to be paid a nominal salary, and the salary established their legal relationship as employees of the government.[4] For example, Massachusetts Governor Alvan T. Fuller, wealthy in his own right, served in several government positions on such terms.[5] During World War II, socialite Doris Duke worked in a canteen for U.S. sailors in Egypt at such a salary.[6] …

Some modern-day one-dollar salary earners work in government as well, such as California’s Governor Schwarzenegger,[9] Mitt Romney,[10] and New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg and his older daughter Emma who also works for the City.[11]

That’s pretty rarefied company there: Schwarzenegger, Romney, and Bloomberg. I see a movie coming on: The Dollar A Year Men. Watch as Arnold, Mitt, Mike, and Dave save the world yadda yadda yadda…

33

Collin Street 07.16.13 at 11:37 pm

“They were thinking that for spending $150,000-200000 on a semester of Petraeus they could attract wingnut donations in a greater amount.”

They were wrong, though, weren’t they?

34

hix 07.17.13 at 1:46 am

A few years back, there were a couple of bad press reports that claimed Steve Jobs would work for one dollar at Apple. Turned out, it was closer to a 100 million dollar. The cash value of stock options and a private jet apperently does not count.
What a nice coincidence that in addition to needy ex-generals, this “honors college” also thinks of Steve Jobs poor heirs and gives every student a Mac Book. Even without stunts like the Patreus thing, places like this disgust me even more than regular elite Uniersities. Those wanabe sub institutions should have no place at Universities for normal people where they just draw resources from usefull work.

35

Anderson 07.17.13 at 2:39 am

“Previous price tag – $150,000 – $200,000. Current price tag – $1. How does this raise the price tag again?”

They can use $20 or so of their savings to hire Andrew F as adjunct Econ prof.

36

Dave 07.17.13 at 5:19 pm

Suddenly everyone forgets to be outraged about adjunct salaries. Imagine my surprise.

37

Andrew F. 07.17.13 at 10:00 pm

ajay @23: If you manage to get a thing for $1 that was previously priced at $150,000, you have not, in fact, “gained” $149,999. You have lost $1 and you have gained a thing. If I buy a neo-Georgian fireplace from the Governor of Virginia for $200,000 rather than $400,000, I haven’t gained $200k; I’ve lost $200k and gained an entirely useless fireplace that I don’t need.

Obviously. When I write that this has saved CUNY $149,999.00, clearly I mean relative to having spent $150,000.00 on Petraeus.

Katherine @26: Previous price tag – $150,000 – $200,000. Current price tag – $1. How does this raise the price tag again?

It may make it more difficult for CUNY to successfully offer a certain range of monetary incentives to public figures to teach. Why accept CUNY’s offer of X dollars with the possibility of this kind of publicity, when you can accept Private University’s offer of X dollars with the possibility of private email communications?

The most interesting aspect about the matter, at this point, is what it indicates about Petraeus’s future intentions. I’m speculating, but a man who reduces his salary to a symbolic $1 for the sake of reputation may have his eye on future political endeavors. His selection of the seminar topic also fits. As I said, speculation.

38

Barry 07.17.13 at 10:02 pm

And you’re wrong again.

39

Hogan 07.18.13 at 1:23 am

It may make it more difficult for CUNY to successfully offer a certain range of monetary incentives to public figures to teach.

Yes. And?

40

Fu Ko 07.18.13 at 8:10 am

Steve Jobs set his salary at $1 to prove his commitment to increasing share price. He did not take any bonuses or stock options either, except for the $90M jet. He was already a major owner of Apple (holding $1.4B in Apple stock).

He did not pretend to be working for free. The point was that he would only get capital gains and/or dividends. That is supposed to inspire investor confidence. Many other owner-CEOs are now doing the same thing. It’s not at all the same thing as the “dollar a year men.”

41

Katherine 07.18.13 at 9:24 am

It may make it more difficult for CUNY to successfully offer a certain range of monetary incentives to public figures to teach. Why accept CUNY’s offer of X dollars with the possibility of this kind of publicity, when you can accept Private University’s offer of X dollars with the possibility of private email communications?

Once again, I’m not clear how this potentially raises the price tag for CUNY. May make it more difficult for them to make celebrity hires at ridiculously high prices – yes. But how does an outcry at $X mean that CUNY would have to offer $X+Y next time?

42

Katherine 07.18.13 at 9:27 am

Steve Jobs … did not take any bonuses or stock options either, except for the $90M jet.

No bonus except a $90m jet? Hell, that’s almost like no bonus at all! Stve Jobs – truly a modern day example of asceticism.

43

Tony Lynch 07.18.13 at 1:26 pm

$1. Finally the monkey gets its peanuts.

44

Nabakov 07.19.13 at 1:19 am

Wonder if CUNY was gonna hit up the hydrocarbon industry for Petraeus’ salary?
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/18/david-petraeus-course-syllabus-features-frackademia-readings

45

Yastreblyansky 07.19.13 at 6:21 pm

@8: “Extreme stature”? I guess for a general, Petraeus is pretty short. No heightism intended, I’m far from tall myself.

46

LFC 07.19.13 at 7:20 pm

hix @34
Even without stunts like the Petraeus thing, places like this disgust me even more than regular elite Universities.

Not following this. So every student is given a computer; so what?

47

vasvas 07.19.13 at 7:42 pm

Putting the money into computer labs, for example, would yield significantly more dividends for the students, even if it’s just labs for the Honors College students. Or so goes the thinking.

48

Michael H Schneider 07.21.13 at 1:53 am

“Previous price tag – $150,000 – $200,000. Current price tag – $1. How does this raise the price tag again?”

Oh Noes!! Deflation!! This will hurt poor debtors and help rich creditors everywhere!

It will also lower the average salary for adjuncts. If you remove a higher than average salary from the pool, and replace it with a lower than average salary, the average goes down.

This will also reduce the GNP, because instead of having $150k in economic activity you only have $1.

Reducing the GNP, shrinking the economic pie, reducing average adjunct salaries, hurting poor debtors – why do you people hate America?

Comments on this entry are closed.