Members of Washington University’s Progressive Action Coalition (PAC) and the Missouri Democratic Party say that the university is implicitly contributing to the political campaign of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jim Talent by paying him a unusually high salary.
According to a March 23 article in the Kansas City Star, Talent, a former U.S. Representative, was paid $90,000 to teach two courses at WU last year. The article stated that full time professors at WU make on average $67,000 a year while part-time professors earn about $7,000 per class.
Last semester Talent taught “The Workings of Congress,” an undergraduate course in Arts and Sciences, and this semester he is teaching “Congressional Ethics: Keeping the House Clean” in the School of Law.
“It concerns me that Jim Talent is receiving such a high salary for teaching one two-hour class per semester,” said Mark Fraley of PAC.
Daniel Hellinger, chair of political science at Webster University, added, “[Talent’s salary] is grossly exorbitant. At least, that’s how it appears to me.”
The Missouri Democratic Party claimed that the issue of Talent’s salary is part of a larger theme of corruption. The Democratic party’s criticism of Talent is not surprising, seeing that he will be running against Democratic Senator Jean Carnahan in this November’s elections.
PAC is concerned with the university’s role in this matter, particularly with any connections between individual donations from members of the Board of Trustees and Talent’s campaign and his unusually high salary. Fraley and other members of the PAC researched Board members’ personal contributions in the senatorial race and found that 72 percent of the money was going to Talent.
“The Board’s donations show that there is merit to the accusations that he is trying to circumvent campaign contribution limits,” said Fraley.
James McLeod, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, thinks otherwise. When asked what influence the Board of Trustees has over faculty salaries, McLeod held up his hand in the shape of a zero: no involvement.
Chancellor Mark Wrighton added, “We do not support any particular candidate or political party.”
Nevertheless, some think the sheer amount of Talent’s salary is still a cause for concern. WU has a history of generous paychecks for political figures, but some think Talent’s salary is especially large.
“His salary is significantly higher than many full-time professors, and even much higher than teachers of similar status as Jim Talent,” said Fraley, who cited the example of former Senator Tom Eagleton who taught at WU until 2000 and received $68,000 per year.
Gerry Everding, spokesperson for political science at WU, would not comment on Talent’s salary, saying that salaries are “personnel issues.” He stressed that Talent is the Brookings Fellow, implying that his title alone signifies his high value to the university.
McLeod also would not comment, stating that salaries are a “confidential matter.” Wrighton did not offer specifics, but cited Talent’s qualifications.
“He has had rich and valuable experiences which our students in law, arts & sciences, and business value,” said Wrighton. He also noted the ways in which Talent has enriched the university, including finding internships for students in Washington, D.C.
Talent was unavailable for comments on the subject, but he has said in the past that his salary is fitting for someone of his experience.
Hellinger was not nearly so reluctant to provide information. He said that political figures who teach part-time at Webster University get no special treatment. A professor at Webster, according to Hellinger, would probably make around $2,500 per course.
Jack Knight, chair of Political Science at WU, listed several factors that account for a professor’s salary: scholarship, quality and quantity of research, stature in the field of political science, and teaching experience and quality.
“Part of it is just responding to the market,” said Knight. “There is a market for academics, there is a market for political scientists, and that market is set by what people at all the political science departments around the country make, and we have to respond to that also.”
Knight did not offer specifics about Talent’s salary because he had been involved with the decision, and he would not offer his opinion on Talent’s salary.
“This decision was made and negotiated in the Chancellor’s office,” he said, adding, “Even though Congressman Talent’s course was listed in political science.he was not made a member of the political science department.”
Wrighton said that the university was pleased with Talent’s work so far.
“The university has the responsibility to appoint members of its teaching and research staff who bring important benefits to our academic community of students, faculty and staff,” said Wrighton. “Mr. Talent has fulfilled his responsibilities to us as we agreed to them at the outset of his appointment, and from what I understand his courses and interactions with students have been (and are) rewarding to those involved.”
Public perception of WU and its relationship to Talent has been mostly negative. Wrighton responded to the public outcry: “I think some will like the fact that he is part of our community and others will not. However, if he has been a plus for students, as I judge he has, it is a plus for WU.”
Contact Mayya at [email protected].