Cost-Cutting at Columbia: Would pay cuts for top officials help save science?

(Photo/Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

By Anya Schiffrin

As Columbia University grapples with the loss of funding from the U.S. government and shutters research projects in the sciences, faculty are asking themselves if there is any way the University can cover some medical research costs to keep this important work going. The question has become more urgent with today’s announcement that the University is cutting 180 jobs “of our colleagues who have been working, in whole or in part, on impacted grants.”

One idea that comes to mind is that of shared sacrifice: 30 percent pay cuts for senior faculty and administration earning more than $300,000 a year, and–if that is not enough–then 10 percent pay cuts for everyone at the University earning between $100,000 and $300,00 per year. Cutting the pay of top administration officials and Deans could save the University tens of millions of dollars that might be channeled back into critical scientific research. 

*For a breakdown of what these cuts would look like at Columbia, see here.

While the idea may sound unusual, it’s been tried at universities in the past–most recently during the COVID pandemic.

In 2020, universities were worried because international enrollment was at risk and costs were rising due to increased spending on facilities. Several top university officials around the country, including at least one Columbia Dean, took a pay cut. So did the leadership team of the London School of Economics. After approving an austerity plan in April 2020, LSE’s president at the time, Minouche Shafik, took a 20 percent pay cut for nearly a year, and, for six months, members of the senior leadership team took a 10 percent cut.

The 2008 global financial crisis also led universities to implement similar measures. In 2009, the University of California Regents faced an $813 million shortfall due to cuts in state support for the UC System. In response, UC President Mark Yudof and the Board of Regents implemented an emergency furlough and salary reduction program for faculty and staff. The furlough plan required employees unpaid vacation days, equivalent to a 4 to 10 percent pay cut. This policy was implemented on a progressive scale—higher earners were forced to take more furlough days. Approximately 108,000 full-time equivalent UC employees were affected.

Similar measures were taken at UC Berkeley. Former Chancellor of the University of Berkeley Robert Birgeneau said, “Over a short length of time, the state took away funding equivalent to the salaries of 4,000 of our staff.  We had a multipronged strategy, which included an early retirement initiative, tuition increases, and salary cuts for the non-unionized staff and faculty [the unions refused to participate]. It was indeed worth it. In the end, we saved all but 110 of the staff jobs. Many of our staff and faculty were proud to participate.”  

Now, universities are grappling with funding cuts from an entirely new source: the federal government. The Trump administration has threatened billions of dollars in reductions, already halting hundreds of millions in science funding nationwide. It has further signaled plans to revoke the tax-exempt status of Universities and to hike taxes on endowments. Around the country, Universities have begun laying off staff and are braced for painful decisions about what programs to cut. The uncertainty makes it difficult to plan, and at Columbia, it’s an existential moment for faculty members who fear that critical decisions are being made without their input.

“Everybody wants to help, “ said Linda Bilmes, senior lecturer chair in public finance at Harvard Kennedy School. Harvard faculty have pledged 10 percent of their salary in order to support Harvard’s fight against Trump. The Crimson reported this week that two million dollars have been pledged, and it will be decided later what the money is used for. 

According to a Georgetown University letter sent to staff and seen by the TMP, on April 29, Georgetown initiated a six-month pause on merit increases for faculty and staff earning more than $50,000 a year. There will be a twelve-month pause for administrative staff and senior-level executives earning more than $200,000 a year. 

As discussed in meetings with the administration, Columbia plans to offer staff and faculty–who are older than 65 and have worked for 10 or more years at Columbia–1.5 years of salary if they agree to stop work by December 31, 2025. There has been no announcement of a furlough, and it’s not known if the University is considering one. 

It’s unclear how much of the money saved from pay cuts and retirement programs could be redeployed into scientific research. Universities are typically decentralized, especially Columbia, and many pots of money are earmarked for particular programs or spending lines. Accounting expert Linda Bilmes from Harvard’s Kennedy School notes that “some funding is fungible and most funding is not. But you can shuffle some things around. I am sure the people in the budget office are working hard to figure this out.”

Still, the symbolism of sacrifice can carry weight even when the financial impact is small by comparison. For example, during the 1988 Asian financial crisis, the Korean government called on its citizens to donate their gold jewelry to help pay for the country’s debt to the IMF. Some 3.5 million citizens (about 25 percent of households) donated, and the news was full of photos of people showing up with gold jewelry in order to help their country. The government also cut housing benefits by 30-40 percent for Korean diplomats living abroad. These actions weren’t fiscally transformative, but they boosted national unity. Shared sacrifice could also improve morale at Columbia.

Members of the Columbia University administration, requesting anonymity, point out that it’s important for pay cuts at the top to be visible. Seeing a University President and top administrators take a pay cut demonstrates solidarity and support for those affected by budget cuts. 

“Progressive pay cuts could boost morale and also soften the blow of other cost-cutting measures (e.g., reductions of program budgets),” said one senior lecturer, explaining why she supports such an idea.  

Others doubt there would be much faculty enthusiasm. “As long as the trustees are in the mode of ‘we're going to get our money back by doing what Trump wants,’ I doubt a lot of people are going to be enthusiastic about helping them by giving up part of their own salary,” said Peter Woit, Senior Lecturer in Discipline of Mathematics. 

Given the high level of distrust that faculty feel towards the Board of Trustees, pay cuts for top administrators might both boost morale and save critical research initiatives. Faculty are furious about apparent leaks to the Wall Street Journal about closed-door meetings. A Columbia Spectator article also caused great consternation by documenting trustee Victor Mendelson’s contribution to Rep. Elise Stefanik’s campaign one week after her first document request from the University. Other creative fundraising ideas, such as issuing bonds, selling real estate holdings, or reappropriating endowment funds could also be used to support science research. Ultimately, faculty are looking to the University’s leadership for signs that it’s thinking creatively about how to protect academic freedom as well as scientific research. 

Columbia spokesperson Samantha Slater did not respond to requests for comment. 

Dr. Anya Schiffrin is the director of the Technology, Media and Communications specialization at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

*Research was carried out by Sam Grosz. This page from AAUP-CU compiles financial documents, budget breakdowns, and analysis to help faculty and students understand how the University allocates its resources.