“This is a proactive retention measure,” Trustee Sandy Pierce said. But at the same meeting, Trustee Rema Vassar said Guskiewicz told her directly that he was planning on staying at Michigan State, and Trustee Mike Balow questioned the urgency, saying, “We are competing against ourselves.”

That quote may be the best summary of this controversy. The urgency would be understandable if the university had a documented competing offer or imminent threat of departure. But from what was publicly discussed, students and employees had little reason to believe this was an emergency action instead of an unusually generous compensation decision.

The primary reason given by the Board was to remain competitive in retaining its president. But that rationale is tougher to swallow given publicly reported Big Ten compensation data. The average base salary for Big Ten presidents for the 2024-25 academic year was about $969,418, per reporting from the Indiana Daily Student. 

Guskiewicz’s pay was already higher than that mark before this raise. Doubling his pay to $2 million doesn’t just keep Michigan State competitive; it puts the university in a different compensation class than most comparable public institutions.

This matters because the debate is about more than salaries. It is about priorities, credibility and whether institutional leadership is willing to hold itself to the same standards of financial discipline expected from the rest of the university community.

Over the past year, Michigan State has argued that tough financial realities require sacrifice. The university's financial planning page states that MSU has a “growing budget deficit” and calls the current shortfall “unsustainable.” The administration announced a plan to cut spending by 9% across colleges and units over two years, amounting to roughly $85 million in cuts. Currently filled positions would be eliminated, according to the same materials.

President Guskiewicz echoed that message in his June 2025 financial update to faculty and staff, stating bluntly that “some workforce reductions are unavoidable,” though the university will try to prioritize non-personnel cuts first. 

The university also issued “Guiding Principles to Reductions,” highlighting stewardship of institutional resources, decision-making for the “common good,” and a commitment to supporting employees with dignity and respect.

These are good principles. Most students, faculty and staff would agree. The problem is how difficult they become to reconcile with a seven-figure increase for the university president, while the rest of the institution is being asked to prepare for a lack of luxury.

This is not an argument for underpaying university presidents or suggesting executive leadership has no value. Running a major public research university is complex, and continuity can matter. But compensation decisions are not made in a vacuum, especially at publicly accountable educational institutions.

Students hear all the time that affordability matters. Faculty and staff are told cuts are needed. Employees face layoffs or uncertainty, and departments are told to reduce spending. But when you look at executive leadership, extraordinary compensation remains. That disconnection is what makes this issue resonate far outside the boardroom.

Supporters may note that this pay increase does not come out of the university’s general fund. That distinction may matter technically, but it does little to soothe the broader concern. Institutional priorities are still reflected in executive compensation. When a university asks its broader community to take cuts while massively increasing executive pay, the optics are understandably bad.

Michigan State is also doing so in a genuinely uncertain financial climate. Those pressures are real. But if anything, that uncertainty makes restraint at the top more, not less, important.

You cannot expect a university president to work for a symbolic salary. But students, faculty and staff have a similar right to expect institutional messaging and institutional action to align. If the raise was necessary, the Board should be able to explain why a president already making more than the reported Big Ten average needed to have his pay doubled when there was no active competing offer. 

If it cannot, the simpler explanation is that this was not about competitiveness. It was about priorities. And priorities are what our institution really values.

Colin Carr is a rising senior at Michigan State University studying political science, with interests in law, public institutions and higher education governance. He has experience working as a paralegal, which has shaped his interest in accountability, institutional decision-making and the real-world impact of public policy.

How to submit guest commentary?

The State News welcomes guest commentary from students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members. If there’s an issue you care about or a perspective you think others should hear, we encourage you to submit a piece for consideration. Please visit the portal to learn more.