Posted on 02/08/2005 7:54:20 AM PST by freespirited
This year’s salary list topper, Eugene M. Tobin from Hamilton College in New York, earned $1.2 million for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, with $315,000 in salary, $827,354 in benefits and $21,059 in expenses, making him the only $1 million-plus president.
Carter income high on charts
President joins college heads making over $500k
By Andrew Greiner
Editor-In-Chief
At first glance, Harvard, Princeton and Yale universities might not have much in common with Columbia. These storied Ivy League institutions reside in the upper echelon of educational institutions when compared with Columbia, if only by reputation.
But these schools do share a common denominator: Each has a president who makes more than $500,000 a year, including salary, benefits packages and expense accounts.
As college presidents’ salaries across the country continue to grow, Columbia President Warrick L. Carter fits right in with the elite, earning $539,137 in salary, benefits and paid expenses.
According to the most recent data on college presidents’ salaries from The Chronicle of Higher Education, Carter ranks 43rd among the 591 private college presidents in the nation.
Carter’s more than $500,000 salary comes after figuring in a $199,725 expense account.
Based on salary and benefits alone, Carter’s $339,412 income ranks 122nd nationally among private college presidents. But figure in close to $200,000 for an expense account and Carter’s rank jumps dramatically.
The Chronicle of Higher Education data do not include paid expenses in total earnings figures. They calculate total compensation based on salary and benefits alone.
This year’s salary list topper, Eugene M. Tobin from Hamilton College in New York, earned $1.2 million for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, with $315,000 in salary, $827,354 in benefits and $21,059 in expenses, making him the only $1 million-plus president.
Cite:http://www.ccchronicle.com/back_new/2004_fall/2004-11-22/campus.php?id=313
smallpox binky PING!
Can you point me to where he makes that claim and as many specifics as possible. Most left-wing "ex-rangers" or "ex-special forces" are frauds (like "Vietnam paratrooper platoon leader" Joe Ellis, another academic phony who went unpunished for a lifetime of lies -- he didn't make it any closer to the war than a classroom, and like Micah Wright, tthe "cartoonist" who had super-detailed tales of Ranger heroism that were all bullshit).
We know that he doesn't have a Ph.D. - the usual standard for a "professor". Who hired this bum?
Not to mention, he's not an Indian, and his "research" appears to consist of making stuff up, Mary Mapes/Dan Rather/Peter Arnett/April Oliver/etc. /etc. /etc. -style.
Assessing Ward Churchill’s Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic
-------
Assessing Ward Churchill’s Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic
Thomas Brown
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Lamar University
Beaumont, TX 77710
Abstract:
This essay analyzes Ward Churchill’s accusations that the US Army perpetuated genocide. Churchill argues that the US Army created a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan people in 1837 by distributing infected blankets. While there was a smallpox epidemic on the Plains in 1837—historians agree, and all evidence points to the fact—that it was accidental, and the Army wasn’t involved.
Update, February 13, 2005:
This essay has been revised since I originally posted it. Some passages quoted by journalists are no longer in it. I wrote the first draft for myself, in a state of outrage over what I had discovered. I still stand by my original analysis. But I think my argument will be more effective without the editorializing. I have stripped most of the outrage, and added some more historiographical context. I want to let the facts speak for themselves
One blogger accused me of misrepresenting what Churchill said where. He has since retracted that accusation, after having read the piece more carefully. But his false accusations are still circulating on various blogs.
The first draft speculated that Churchill *may* have committed perjury. I am not a lawyer, and used the word “perjury” as any layman would, to describe dishonesty in a court proceeding. Given that the technicalities of perjury rules can vary from one venue and one situation to the next, I have removed that statement. I still contend that Churchill’s trial brief as published in Indians R Us contains all the same errors that I pointed out in my first draft. Contrary to some web critics’ accusations, I have never called for Churchill to be prosecuted for perjury or anything else. Please read more carefully, and be honest in your criticism.
Thanks to everyone who has emailed me. Some of the support I don’t want or don’t deserve. Some of the criticism has been right on the money, and incorporated into my revision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.