NC Bill that Robs the University to Pay Athletics

During a faculty salary crisis, we discover legislation  has been introduced to REDUCE the University’s tuition revenue—even though tuition revenue can pay faculty salaries.   

As reported today in the Raleigh News & Observer  , the provision would allow out-of-state athletes on scholarship to owe only in-state rates for tuition at UNC System schools for scholarship purposes — saving millions for the booster clubs and sports programs that fund those scholarships.

This does not save the student athletes who on scholarship any money—their tuition is already paid for.  This only changes who has to pay for it.  So it saves sports booster clubs—at Appalachian it’s the Yosef Club.  The Yosef Club represents private funding that professional fundraisers have raised, and it currently pays for these tuition scholarships.  The scholarship money pays the tuition to the University, including the much higher out-of-state tuition for any scholarship athlete who is from out of state.   

This legislation suggests we consider out-of-state student athletes as in-state students so that the Yosef Club does not have to pay their out-of-state tuition.  At Appalachian, that’s $15,000 per student per year (because out-of-state tuition is $15,000 more per year than in-state tuition).  If about 160 of our 450 student athletes on scholarship are from out of state, that’s $2 million a year that we’d not ask the Yosef Club for!  That’s $2 million a year not going to the University cash inbox.  That’s $2 million a year in tuition revenue that the University would not be collecting!  That’s $2 million a year LESS for faculty salaries!

Are Appalachian’s administrators behind this?  Do they WANT to save the athletics boosters money and REDUCE our tuition revenue, which can pay faculty salaries?   Our administrators told us that they care about faculty, care about faculty compensation, and care about the quality of academics at Appalachian.  Who is so carelessly—no, recklessly—supporting a Bill that will reduce our University’s budget and our University’s academic mission?  And all to save the sports booster club money?  Major fumble!

Related post: App State’s football program loses $20 million a year, and forces students to pay for the loss. Read it here.


In response to a request made by the Faculty Senate Budget Committee in early 2019, Appalachian’s Center for Research and Policy Analysis (CERPA) conducted an analysis of the University’s budget allocations, using raw data the Appalachian administration shared. It is a serious data-driven report that provides important insights for the faculty, administration, and Board of Trustees.  

The administration presented a response to the CERPA report to the Faculty Senate on April 29, 2019. Unfortunately, rather than spending time addressing the problems and finding solutions, the administration created a presentation that manipulated the data to confuse the facts. 

The administration never denied the accuracy of the findings or analysis in the CERPA report; rather, they sought to spin the numbers another way.  However, it was not so easy to fool the Faculty Senate. Senators quickly noticed the obfuscation and exposed it in the Q&A.

There is no denying the basic fact that over the past five years, the administration has shifted a significant amount of funding from academics to administration and support activities. A Senator pointed out that hidden in the administration’s own presentation, the numbers showed that the amount of money shifted away from academics exceeds $2.5 million. Yes, you read that correctly: if this administration had funded academics at the same rate as five years ago, there would have been $2.5 million more going to academics. If those funds were directed to faculty salaries, it would be enough money to correct 66% of the faculty salary deficit!  

It’s clear that campus budget decisions can address the faculty salary deficit. It’s time to take a good hard look at institutional priorities. We’re all in this together, and we all want this institution to thrive. Faculty have pointed out the problem. We are waiting for the administration to show leadership on finding a campus-based plan to address the faculty salary crisis.

Here’s a closer look at specific examples of attempts to obscure the facts.


The administration’s presentation obscured the relative changes in funding priorities by reporting the absolute numbers. This is a well-known trick used to camouflage incremental changes by skewing the numbers and charts with large absolute numbers. Data literate people know that incremental decisions and relative changes are the relevant numbers when discussing changes in budget priorities and trends.  

Faculty Senators pointed out something hidden within the following administration’s slide. It shows that academics accounted for 70.7% of the general budget in FY2014, but since FY2014, academics only accounted for 62.5% of new funds. One senator pointed out that this decline in the share of funding going to academics meant more than a $2.5 million cut in academics!

Yes, if budget priorities remained the same as FY2014, academics would have $2.5 million more in funding. This amount would provide an average raise of nearly $3,000 for full-time faculty. A $3000 average raise would have made a difference! It would have recovered 66% of the lost purchasing power that faculty have experienced in the past 10 years.

Where did these funds go?  What took priority over faculty salaries and academics?  The administration’s slide tells us the answer. The following slide shows that the relative funding cuts to academics were redirected to expand the university’s bureaucracy. As the following slide from their presentation shows, in FY 2014, institutional support and student support accounted for 18.8% of the general budget (14.2% + 4.6%).  Since FY 2014, 27.0% of new funds (up from 18.8%) were allocated to institutional support and student support (19.9% + 7.1%).

The administration’s own analysis confirms the key finding from the CERPA report, that the administration has cut relative funding for academics to prioritize administrative and support activities.

Figure 1a (1)

Figure 2a


To skew the numbers in their favor, the administration selectively dropped relevant data, namely auxiliary budgets–which are the budgets for different campus services, such as athletics. In explaining the reason for dropping this data, they claimed that units in the auxiliary category are self-funded. This is not true. A major component of auxiliary operations is Athletics, and Athletics is not self-funded. The truth is that athletics has more than a $20 million annual operating deficit. You read that correctly. Athletics loses more than $20 million every year. The losses are covered by student fees and these fees are determined on campus by this administration (link to previous story).

The problem is that the student-funded subsidies to athletics directly cuts into funding for student support and indirectly cuts into funding for academics. As CERPA pointed out, student fees are limited to a 3% total increase each year, so choosing to increase athletics fees is a choice not to fund other needs. The point here is that athletics accounts for much of the growth in EHRA non-faculty positions, and the administration decided to expand these EHRA non-faculty positions instead of funding other things. So, this data directly shows the administration’s budget priorities and should be part of any analysis. Cherry picking data is an elementary trick to manipulate findings. We need action to solve the problem, not data manipulation to justify inaction. And yet, even after inappropriately dropping this inconvenient data, the new chart still shows that the numbers of EHRA non-faculty grew 33% faster than those of EHRA faculty!

Figure 3a


To calm faculty alarm about our salary crisis, the administration emphasized the level of the budgets by stating that “Academics continues to receive the highest percentage of the total budget.”  This is an empty statement that distracts from the key finding. Did you notice that this doesn’t point out that the proportion of the budget going to Academics is shrinking? It doesn’t speak to the problem that the administration is shrinking the share of the budget that goes to academics.

More disturbing, the statement implies that allocating more than 50% is the benchmark. As if it is all good if Academics receives more than 50% of the budget! If the administration actually holds this view, Appalachian is in a more dramatic tailspin than we previously thought.

Allocating more than 50% to Academics is not the benchmark for prioritizing academics! Given that academics is the mission of the university, it should receive much more than 50%. In FY2014, academics received 70.7% of the budget, but it has only received 62.5% of new funds since FY2014.


The administration presented a slide that appeared to question the assertion that “recent allocations of positions prioritize upper- and mid-level administration” by listing EHRA non-faculty positions with salaries under $50,000.  See their slide below.

Figure 4a

Of course, simply pointing out the existence of the positions earning less than $50,000 doesn’t change what the data tells us. Not surprising, their presentation did not point out the existence (and expansion) of the highly paid executive EHRA positions. Let’s look past this distraction. The revealing data is found by comparing the change in the number of positions of EHRA non-faculty and the change in the compensation for these positions.  Only using general fund data (to be fair), the data show that EHRA non-faculty positions increased 10% between 2014 and 2018. During this period, compensation for these positions in Institutional Support increased a whopping 36.5%!

This tells us that the growth in EHRA non-faculty positions is due to increases in the high-paid positions, specifically mid- and upper-level administration. The data show that the university is expanding the bureaucracy with highly paid positions while shrinking the funding for academics and faculty salaries (link to previous story).


The AAUP blog looks at campus issues related to the AAUP.  Blog posts do not necessarily represent the opinion of every member of the AAUP.


The Center for Economic Research and Policy Analysis (CERPA) released its report, commissioned by the Faculty Senate, on Appalachian State’s budget priorities. This helps us see what the University has been spending money on and why faculty have suffered such dramatic salary decline, a problem spelled out clearly at the Feb. 25 special Faculty Senate meeting.

The 11-page report uses data provided by the University Budget Office and IRAP. It’s worth reading the whole report here, but the upshot is this:

The University has used available funds to expand administrative positions over faculty positions and faculty raises. Since 2014 faculty positions increased at a rate much slower than SHRA staff positions and EHRA non-faculty positions. 

The University has directed compensation funds to administrative and support positions more than faculty positions. Since 2013, funds for compensation increased 21% for academics, 29% for student support, and 37% for institutional support.  

Although we have often heard that money cannot be moved from one category to another, the University’s hands are not really so tied. The University can move money around! And the University can avoid the need to move money by getting things right in the budget planning process. Paul Forte stated on Feb. 25 that a path can’t turn into something else, referring to the million-dollar path to the football stadium that the University will build, but the University could have asked for permission to use that $1million for a different project. Similarly, making decisions to hire administrators and paying for their operating expenses is done at the cost of funding other things, such as faculty raises. The dramatic expansion of institutional and student support comes at the cost of faculty salaries.

Rather than explaining their choices and funding priorities, and taking responsibility for them, the administration told us that they simply could not raise our salaries—as if they weren’t spending money to expand other positions and offices. But, clearly, that’s exactly what they were doing, at our expense and at the expense of the institution.

Stay involved. Attend the April 12 University budget presentations.


This blog post is on matters of concern to faculty and related to the AAUP’s mission, but it does not necessarily represent the perspective of all faculty members or all AAUP members.

Chancellor Needs a Plan for Faculty Salary Increases

On Feb. 25, 2019, hundreds of faculty showed up, live and in person, to speak out about the faculty salary crisis. You can watch the videotape of it on The Appalachian’s Facebook page.

The Chancellor’s email reply to the specific faculty who made comments or posed questions on Feb 25 said that the University uses CUPA salary data to compare faculty salaries to norms in their fields. We’ve compared faculty salaries to CUPA averages. CUPA data shows faculty, specifically, are not well compensated.  

If you think faculty members are overpaid whiners, wait until you see the administrators’ salaries. Many of our administrators earn well above CUPA averages for their positions. 

In addition, there are landscapers, camp services staff, ticket managers, recreation managers, recruiters, athletics trainers, advisors, counselors, and campus interior designers who have higher salaries than some of our full-time faculty members. And these staff members deserve every penny they get!  This is not an issue of faculty v. staff, or a demand that staff lose their increases to support faculty increases. This is an opportunity to point out the university’s priorities in relation to faculty and the academic mission. 

As you can see from the Chancellor’s remarks and her email on Feb 25, Chancellor Everts left faculty hanging on a promise of a new funding model (call it Plan A), with no Plan B.  Even Plan A never stated how much of this promised financial windfall she will devote to fixing the faculty salary problem. An average of a 10.1% salary increase to faculty would put us at the 75th percentile of our peers, as the Senate Budget Committee’s report at the Feb 25 meeting showed. So, what specifically is the amount of money Chancellor Everts expects to get in Plan A, and how much of that amount is needed to increase faculty salaries by an average of 10.1%?  

Next, if Plan A doesn’t come to pass (i.e., if our funding model remains the same), what is Plan B? Chancellor Everts did not offer a plan for reaching targeted faculty salaries. Maybe Plan B involves saying Appalachian involves freezing administrative salaries, even in years when we have money for raises, until faculty salaries are at their target.  There has been no plan developed or shared. The Chancellor can tell us to email our Deans. But the faculty deserves a plan proposed by university leadership, with the leadership getting faculty input in any plans. The leadership should work to implement the plan, with specific salary targets, and provide regular updates on how close to their targets they’ve gotten.  


Note: This blog post is on matters of concern to faculty and related to the AAUP’s mission, but it does not necessarily represent the perspective of all faculty members or all AAUP members.


Chancellor Emails Faculty Who Spoke or Wrote Comments, Questions Feb 25

———- Forwarded message ———

From: Chancellor Everts <>

Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2019, 11:46 PM

Subject: Responses to your questions from the Feb. 25 Faculty Senate meeting

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to thank you for the time you took to share your questions, perspectives and personal stories with me, as well as with your other colleagues assembled for the special Faculty Senate meeting on Feb. 25.

Below I have compiled answers to your questions, some of which are informed by Appalachian’s Board of Governors liaison Philip Byers, Provost Darrell Kruger and Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Paul Forte. (Please note, for those who posed questions to Provost Kruger during the second half of the meeting which have yet to be answered, he will share his responses separately.)

There were several follow-up questions to my comments related to my priority of providing merit raises to faculty. The central theme of these questions is around the difference between merit and equity raises and why my priority is focused on merit, rather than equity raises. Related comments and questions pertain to a discussion of the raise process, whether related to equity or merit – not being fair or meaningful – and a question about whether we have options other than the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity upon which to base faculty salaries. I was also asked to promise to use enrollment funds to provide minimal merit pay increases, and asked whether the amount of promotion and tenure raises could be increased.

In response to these questions, I would like to reiterate a key message from my remarks on Feb. 25: My priorities and advocacy at the state level, since arriving on this campus, have been focused on changing the funding model for Appalachian, which will fundamentally and dramatically change our campus and what it will be like to work and learn here. When this happens – and I believe this will happen soon – my top priority will be merit increases for faculty and staff. (Academic facilities and support appropriate for a campus of our size are my second and third priorities.) I focus on merit increases because the university has a solid system in place for staff, and this is an area in which faculty in particular have the ability to influence a principled and reasonable application of standards of merit. I appreciate your sharing your concerns regarding merit pay. Based on the questions and concerns you raise, I believe it will be important to undertake a merit pay study, so we can explore how different the merit process is across colleges, discuss parity between non-tenure track and tenure track salaries, and determine whether Appalachian should reform the merit process. I have asked Provost Kruger to work with Faculty Senate to get this underway.

Regarding the questions about the Delaware Study and the request to promise to use enrollment funds to provide minimal merit pay increases instead of providing new positions or other academic needs in the future, these questions raise a very important point: faculty have a voice in university budgeting. The budgeting process begins at the faculty and staff level, so voicing your requests to your Chair and Dean is critical. Next month, Deans will be presenting their budget requests in an open meeting. I encourage you to voice your concerns and requests now and attend the budget presentations on April 12 as well – it is an important opportunity to be heard, and to be part of the budgeting process as it is taking place.

For clarification, Academic Affairs uses College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) data as a point of departure for comparing faculty salaries by academic discipline, and the Delaware Study to determine the number of faculty positions required based on enrollment growth. In addition to the upcoming budget presentations, I also encourage you to meet with Academic Affairs leadership and/or to attend an upcoming “Office Hours with the Provost” session so you can ask more questions and share further share the concerns you have raised. As Provost Kruger moves forward in working with Faculty Senate, your thoughts and perspective will be valuable.

Regarding faculty promotion increases, the last time we increased the amount awarded to those who earn tenure and promotion was in July 2015. Provost Kruger allocated $283,000 to support 58 faculty promotions this year – 30 to full professor and 28 to associate professor. He and I agree we need to increase the amounts awarded to faculty who are promoted, as this amount has not changed in nearly four years. This will be an important consideration during the budget discussions for next year, and we thank you for bringing up this matter.

Another theme that emerged is related to benefits – health care benefits in particular. I heard your stories of struggling to manage the burden of serious illnesses. As a two-time cancer survivor, I understand the tremendous strain a critical illness has on individuals and their families. To a family already burdened with catastrophic health events, managing added financial stress is incredibly difficult. While the negotiations for the state health care plan are not controlled at the university level, Governor Byers and I will share the stories you told us on Feb. 25, as well as the many other stories we know, with the Board of Governors, UNC System staff and legislators. I will also continue to relate the advantage of a competitive benefits package in recruiting and retaining talented faculty and staff – an important point also brought up by more than one person.

Several of you raised questions related to full-time professors and a national trend in rising numbers of non-tenure track, three-quarter time, adjunct faculty and lecturers. We have been moving in the right direction in this regard. Since 2015, we have added 75 full-time faculty, increasing the number of full-time faculty to 1,005 (72% of our total) faculty. Of our full-time faculty, 737 (73%) are on the tenure track. While we are performing better than most of our peer institutions on this measure, our student-faculty ratio is one of which we are very proud, and has remained steady for the last several years. In the 2017-18 academic year, Academic Affairs authorized Deans and Department Chairs to extend multi-year contracts to adjunct faculty with solid performance histories in departments with student credit hour (SCH) demand. Appalachian employees may choose to engage in employment beyond their work at the university, but this should be a preference, rather than arising from a need to compensate for salaries not keeping pace with the cost of living.

There were a few questions regarding my choices to fund construction projects and coaches’ contracts during a year in which faculty did not receive raises. The answer to these questions comes down to funding sources. Appalachian cannot reallocate the money for these expenses to pay faculty salaries. That said, Director of Athletics Doug Gillin is working to change Athletics funding so a larger proportion is funded by revenue sources (such as gate receipts and donations), with student fees supporting a smaller percentage of athletics expenses.

There was one question about why the message to campus on Sept. 26 came from Human Resources rather than the Provost or me. In response to this, I apologize on behalf of Provost Kruger and myself. We realize the way you received this message came across as insensitive and this was not our intention.

There were two questions regarding the specifics of how our funding model would change, and how this change would result in an increase of more than $20 million for Appalachian. The model under which we are currently funded is based upon projected credit hours. Under the current model, our appropriation is calculated as the difference between expenses and tuition receipts. Under the proposed funding model, we would receive funding based on a credit completion formula (CCF). Under the proposed CCF model, we would be funded based on actual credit hours completed, including summer hours (which have not previously been considered in our funding allocation). Under this model, tuition and nonresidents would be excluded. These changes, once implemented, will result in an increase of Appalachian’s state appropriation of approximately $22 million over time.

Governor Byers and I were asked why we feel we can get this model changed when past Chancellors were not successful in doing so. I understand the skepticism of those of you who have been here many years longer than I have, and I would likely feel doubtful had I experienced the same. Governor Byers addressed the changes in the makeup of the Board of Governors and the fact that we have an Appalachian alumnus and Trustee helping us advocate for change. From my perspective, I can tell you that when I arrived at Appalachian I immediately recognized the single, most significant impact I can make here – far above and beyond the physical infrastructure changes underway – will be to achieve this change in the funding model. Doing so will create lasting improvements in the quality of life and work for our faculty and staff, and will launch our institution into the future with a strength and capacity we have not yet seen. I am wholeheartedly dedicated to making this happen. I have been working toward this goal since day one, and I advocate for it in Raleigh, in Chapel Hill and in Boone every single day. I believe it is in our near future.

Finally, through your frustration, nearly everyone who shared their perspectives and asked questions also expressed passion for teaching our students and for our university. Appalachian students, faculty and staff are fortunate to be members of this community. It is well past time our university is recognized and rewarded for the achievements of our accomplished faculty, our innovative staff and our passionate students.

I remain dedicated to making this happen.

Very sincerely,


App State Administrators (But Not Faculty!) Paid Well Above Averages, CUPA Data Show

Appalachian State faculty salaries, when adjusted for inflation, have been in decline for a decade. Our salaries are now lower than those at most of our peer institutions.  After the 2008 recession, things were hard, and we all did more with less.  Now we’re in an era of economic prosperity and everyone is benefitting from this. Except the faculty at Appalachian. Our peer institutions gave their faculty raises. Faculty peers’ salaries have kept up with inflation. Ours have not. We didn’t mind not having money when everyone was in the same boat. But over this decade the administration has continued to hire new administrators and support staff at overly generous salaries. They have funded new initiatives and prioritized giving Athletics the money it needs–all while telling us that they have no money for those of us who perform the core mission of the institution. Too painful to believe?  Take a look at some numbers.

The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) collects data from a variety of higher education institutions and reports findings that reflect aggregate salary information. CUPA data reveal that App State faculty salary averages hover around CUPA averages while App State executive-level administrators are compensated well above CUPA averages.

When looking at the data for 2017-18 faculty salaries from the CUPA Faculty in Higher Education Survey report, we see that App State faculty salaries are right around the average salaries for all Master’s level universities (our CUPA group). Of course, we like to think we are better than the typical Master’s level university, so it would ideal if App State faculty (and all employees on our campus) were paid quite a bit more than the average salary in our general CUPA group of Master’s level institutions.   

In 2017-18, the average App State full professor salary was $98,383. This is 2.3% above the CUPA average for full professors at Master’s level universities ($96,197). App State associate professors on average earned 2.6% above the CUPA average ($79,102 at App State compared to the group average of $77,066), and our assistant professors earned 1.4% below CUPA average ($69,252 at App State compared to the group average of $70,220). CUPA data did not show an average salary for full-time NTT faculty at App State.

However, App State executive-level administrative salaries tend to far exceed CUPA averages. CUPA averages for executive-level administrator salaries in 2017-18 were reported on Higher Ed Jobs. CUPA’s 2017-18 Administrators in Higher Education Survey used data from 1,187 institutions for 197 executive and senior-level administrative positions, and shows us average salaries for specific administrative positions by type of institution. Comparing the CUPA averages for 2017-18 executive-level administrator salaries at Master’s level institutions to App State administrators’ 2017-18 salaries, which are reported in the Raleigh News & Observer online database of UNC salaries, we see that our executive-level administrators tend to make far more than the CUPA average salary in our CUPA group of Master’s level institutions, even while faculty salaries in any given rank hover around CUPA averages. For instance:

  • CUPA average Chancellor-Single Institution/Campus within System= $300,000; ours=$345,313 (15% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Chief Contracts/Grants= $79,656; ours=$91,108 (14% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Dean of Graduate School = $135,000; ours=$175,200 (30% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Chief Athletics Admin=$116,725; ours=$270,612 (132% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Chief Diversity Officer= $98,450; ours= $148,675 (51% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Chief HR Officer = $111,395; ours=$149,086  (34% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Dean of Honors=$110,642; ours=$140,000 (27% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Chief Information Officer = $137,112; ours=$173,233  (26% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Dean of Business= $179,685; ours=$226,645 (26% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Dean of Education=$105,000; ours=$171,990 (64% above CUPA ave)
  • CUPA average Dean of Arts & Sciences= $101,366; ours=$187,500 (85% above CUPA ave)

This is only a sample of App State administrators, of course. Go see the data for yourself.  Look at the CUPA average executive-level administrator salaries here. Be sure to look at the average salary for a specific administrative position in the Master’s column (not, for instance, the “all institutions” column or the column showing institutions that award only Associate’s degrees).  You can check the average salaries of other non-faculty professional positions, such a coaches, advisors, student success professionals and Title IX coordinators, here

Our executive-level administrators may be doing fantastic jobs and deserve every penny that they’re being paid. Faculty might be willing to celebrate these above-average administrator salaries on our campus, if our salaries were similarly above average. The problem is not that our administrators are paid well above CUPA averages.  The problem is that upper administrators are being paid well above our CUPA group averages while faculty are not.  In fact, we are told that there’s just not enough money to pay faculty.

While there are, of course, variations across departments, with some faculty being paid further above their corresponding CUPA average than others, the point is that on the whole faculty members are not being compensated as well compared to CUPA averages as many of our executive-level administrators are.

App State is one of the better institutions in our group of Master’s level institutions, so it makes sense to compensate our employees more than the CUPA average; as a better-than-average institution we have better-than-average faculty and administrators. While faculty perform the core mission of the University, at salaries that hover around CUPA group averages, the University’s upper administration has made sure that upper administrators are well compensated.    

On Feb. 25 at 4pm the Chancellor will be addressing a special Faculty Senate meeting on the Faculty Salary Crisis. Will she attempt to explain why her hands are tied, why she can’t do anything to raise faculty salaries? You might want to show up and see if she’s able to convince you that while she’s able to take care of executive-level administrators and support staff, paying many of them well above average, she is not able to take care of faculty.

If you check these figures and think any of these numbers are for any reason inaccurate or misleading, give us some data.  We welcome all facts and data!

Note: This post is a report on matters of interest to the AAUP chapter, not an official statement by the Chapter.

Faculty Forum Take-Aways: WOW

img_3921The Jan. 29, 2019 Faculty Forum on Faculty Salary Crisis drew faculty from all ranks, from NTT to Full Professor, and all career stages from recent hires through the retired and can’t-afford-to-retire.  The Forum’s purpose was twofold: To hear how faculty salary stagnation and decline have impacted individual faculty members; and to discuss action steps.  The Forum began with four faculty members, two NTT and two TT, who shared their own stories and concerns.  

Faculty members in attendance then began to share their own stories.  Full professors who thought they’d be able to retire by now.  NTTs who have given their heart and soul to this institution, for decades longer than any top-level administrator has worked here–not only by teaching students but also by raising big money for the institution to help it grow and raise its profile.  Associate professors who have experienced such salary compression as to be, after many years here, still earning less money than they earned as K-12 teachers or as assistant professors at previous institutions. 

Amidst these stories emerged some common themes:

  • That we used to feel like the institution valued students and the role faculty played instructing and mentoring students, as well as creating new knowledge for the public good, and now we don’t.
  • That we used to feel like faculty and administrators had shared values and were all on the same team.  And yet when we think about how upper-level administrators have seen their salaries continually go up, including our Chancellor whose salary is 10 times higher than many of our Senior Lecturers, now we don’t.
  • That we used to like coming to work, and now we don’t.

Here are some detailed testimonials that faculty shared with us, anonymously:

Faculty Member 1: As I write this I have holes in my shoes, 1/3 of the buttons on my coat, and the car I drove to campus today is held together with duct tape. I drove here from Ashe County because my wife and I, and our two children, cannot afford to live in Boone or nearer to campus. I need new glasses, but can’t afford the eye exam. I am a photographer, but am currently selling my photo equipment to help make ends meet. I work as a consultant to make extra money for my family, as well as conducting workshops and finding and selling old photo equipment online. We have recently started shopping for groceries online so we can more closely monitor our budget and remove things we can’t afford. We have $500 in the bank. I am an associate professor, and am considering a part-time retail job. There is a budget crisis, and it is indefensible to claim otherwise.

Faculty Member 2: Due to some health issues, I elected to switch from the regular 70/30 plan in 2018 to the premium 80/20 plan in 2019. That will increase the amount (pre-tax) deducted from my salary by $171.78 per month or $2061.36 for the year. Last year I paid $682.88 per month for health care, which is $8,194.56 total. This year I will pay $854.66 per month, or $10,255.92 for the year. These health care expenses amounted to around 15% of my gross salary and over 22% of my net pay last year, which are already extremely high numbers that will only increase this year given my change in plan. This means that health care costs will add up to around one sixth of my gross salary and one quarter of my take home pay in 2019.

Faculty Member 3: I was making over $80,000 as a veteran public school teacher in Chicago (and we went on strike to keep our rightful pay and benefits). I made far less as a grad student, but we also went on strike to preserve our minimal remuneration. I took a major pay cut from public school teaching to come to ASU, and the health “benefits” for dependents, on top of high costs of living, are squeezing my family’s budget, to an egregious degree. At this rate, ASU faculty would be more than entitled to withhold their labor.

Faculty Member 4: I joined the faculty at Appalachian State in 2009.  As a senior hire, I was able to negotiate a reasonable initial salary based on my position at my previous institution.  Since arriving here, I have experienced salary stagnation like my faculty peers. More important, I have witnessed the failure of administrators to use my negotiated initial salary – and those of other external hires – to address issues of salary compression on this campus. I have repeatedly asked why compression issues remain unaddressed and I have not received an explanation.


Our  faculty salaries–across all levels– would need to increase by 10% this year just to make up for cost of living increases.  

So, what to do?  Don’t stand idly by.  Show everyone this is a central issue by attending the special Faculty Senate meeting to address faculty salaries on Mon, Feb 25 at 4pm in Parkway Ballroom of Plemmons Student Union.  If you teach at that time, write your departmental Faculty Senate representative.  Tell that person what you want them to share on your behalf.  Demand action.  This is not simply a matter of the NC legislature not giving enough money to Appalachian State.  We don’t get enough money, that’s for sure.  But it’s also about our own institutional priorities and academics, and the faculty whose work is so central to academics, taking a back seat.



BLOG POST UPDATE (as of Feb. 2019): The Faculty Senate Technology Committee along with the Chief Information Officer formed an advisory group of stakeholders, including faculty members, to examine and further revise the Policy 901.  That working group, which will be meeting some time in spring 2019, includes the following faculty members:

Randy Reed (Senate Campus Tech Committee, Philosophy and Religion)
Regina Hartley ( Senate Campus Tech Committee, Computer Information Systems)
Martha McCaughey (Senate, At-Large, Sociology) 
Becki Turpin (Senate, Nursing)
Agnes Gambill (Library)

Hey, professor, mind if I sample your urine?  You’re working at a state university, and you just peed into a state-provided urinal on university property, after all.  No? Well, how about your car? You wouldn’t mind if your boss searched it, or if the university attorneys told the university police it was ok for them to search it, would you?  After all, you parked it on state property and they might “need” something in it. What about if the university administration or police took the notes you had made for a research project—those ones you wrote on a university-provided notepad and put in your state-owned desk drawer?  How about the document you put into your privately owned backpack or purse—if that document were work-related, would it be OK to go into and search your bag? 

laptop image

What if the information technology team installed remote-access technology into your university-issued laptop and turned the monitoring technology on?  How about remotely accessing the camera in your computer to watch what you’re doing?

If you don’t like the idea of these actions, then you have some expectation of privacy, even at work.  Good–you should! The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution actually suggests that this is an important right.

No faculty members should waive their right to privacy, which is fundamental to our academic freedom and the ability to do our work to benefit the public good.  And yet, if you don’t speak up, a drafted policy at Appalachian State (Policy 901) is going to do just that—ask you (and students, and staff, and visitors) to waive your expectation of privacy just for using the university’s information infrastructure.  But there is still time to voice your concerns.  Policy 901 is being debated through February, and faculty should contact their Faculty Senate representative or the Faculty Senate Technology Committee with feedback.  You can see the proposed new policy here – starting on 4th page of January Faculty Senate meeting agenda:  This is not our current Policy 901; this is a proposed revision.  We must  challenge the Orwellian components of the proposed new Policy 901.

Asking faculty to waive their privacy rights in their electronic files and communications is neither wise nor necessary.  Although the Department of Justice considers adding a “no expectation  of privacy” statement in technology use policies to be a “law-enforcement friendly” policy (making it easier for police to search your files without a search warrant), such policies are hardly academic-freedom friendly.  

Think this is all an over-reaction, that nobody is really interested in what scholars are working on?  Think again.

The well-known professor William Cronon at University of Wisconsin was the victim of political interference.  The Republican Party wanted his emails, including personal ones he’d sent over his university’s computer and networks per their policy that allows for incidental personal uses of the computer system.  Fortunately for Cronon, the U of WI Chancellor Biddy Martin releasedstatement saying that the university had analyzed the public-records request, as it does with all records requests, by applying “the kind of balancing test that the law allows, taking such things as the rights to privacy and free expression into account.” The Chancellor explained that the university intended to protect a “zone of privacy” for scholars and scientists so they can pursue knowledge without fear of reprisal. “When faculty members use e-mail or any other medium to develop and share their thoughts with one another, they must be able to assume a right to privacy of those exchanges, barring violation of state law or university policy,” Chancellor Martin said. “Having every exchange of ideas subject to public exposure puts academic freedom in peril and threatens the processes by which knowledge is created.”  (See )

Prof. Steve Wing of UNC Chapel Hill was harassed by hog farm industry giants.  The North Carolina Pork Council got wind of Wing’s research on the health impacts hog farms had on people living near them, and started demanding his notes. Fearing for the safety of his research participants, wanting to comply with the confidentiality protections he’d promised them through his University’s IRB protocols, and wanting to protect the integrity of his academic research, Wing refused to comply.  It was a nightmare for the professor, and illustrates why such academic records—whether in electronic form or not–must not be matters of public record.  If they are deemed public simply because stored on a state-issued device or transmitted over a university network, then a professor like Steve Wing could have been fired or even arrested for not turning over or stealing “state property.”  Chapel Hill’s IRB took Wing’s side, saying he was ethically correct.  (For a story about Steve Wing see .)

The American Tradition Institute tried to gain access to the electronic communications of University of Virginia climate scientists.  As reported by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the privacy of the professor’s research records and communications because making those matters of public record would curtail scientific research.  Scientists who have to fear that every email they write would be subject to public disclosure would be hesitant to criticize a colleague’s research, or might leave the university for another university that afforded more privacy.

We would not be able to serve our profession, our students, and ultimately the public if special interests could succeed in preventing us from seeking and sharing the truth. 

Given these issues, Appalachian State’s proposed changes to our Acceptable Use of Computing and Electronic Resources Policy (Policy 901) should be revised so as not to assert a broad claim of ownership or access to electronic files or communications.  The policy should be revised so that it does not require us to waive our privacy rights. In its current form, the proposed policy asks employees to waive their privacy in their electronic files and communications, because it would force us to click “agree” to a “no expectation of privacy” statement.  (Again, see the proposed new policy here – starting on 4th page of January Faculty Senate meeting agenda: .)

The new policy should state what the state/University does not own and will not search, and articulate what it would or might need to search–for instance, to maintain network security, or when the police present a search warrant, or when the information is subject to a bona fide Public Records Act request.  

But, some might say, we’re public employees, so we can’t have any privacy at work.  This is flat out wrong. Public (government) employees actually have greater protections of privacy provided by the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, public employees must also be accountable to taxpayers, and that’s why we  have the Public Records Act. But not all information is subject to such requests because not everything on our computers is a public record.  You might think of records protected by FERPA or HIPPA, but there are multiple other sorts of information that are not public record and/or protected by law.  Just think of people’s library searching and borrowing records. In NC, and in almost every other state, the privacy of these records is protected by law–and for good reason.

Remember, too, that just because the campus police are investigating a crime they do not have some automatic right to search your person, your car, or your electronic files without a search warrant.  If they are conducting a criminal investigation, state employees have even more—not fewer—privacy protections. (see the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center document on this here: )

A good example of a recently updated acceptable use of info systems policy that acknowledges privacy rather than attempts to strip away privacy is UNC Chapel Hill’s policy. For their acceptable use policy see: and see their related policy on the privacy of electronic information at:

It’s particularly important to include in the Acceptable Use Policy a section, or a link to another policy, on the privacy of certain electronic materials.  

A professor’s ability to do their work that is on principle free from government or corporate interference demands some expectation of privacy.

Sure, it’s easy to access, copy, or otherwise take huge amounts of information given the capabilities of current information and communication technologies.  Commenting on the use of new electronic communications, an AAUP report, Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications affirmed one “overriding principle”:

“Academic freedom, free inquiry, and freedom of expression within the academic community may be limited to no greater extent in electronic format than they are in print, save for the most unusual situation where the very nature of the medium itself might warrant unusual restrictions—and even then only to the extent that such differences demand exceptions or variations. Such obvious differences between old and new media as the vastly greater speed of digital communication, and the far wider audiences that electronic messages may reach, would not, for example, warrant any relaxation of the rigorous precepts of academic freedom.”

Finally, giving campus officials permission to look at files that traverse the University’s information infrastructure (such as a picture you post to Instagram using your private iPhone while on the campus wifi) is a bad idea.  You might be saying, “but I have nothing to hide” and “those things won’t be public records, but the University might want or need to look at those files.” And if and when they do, you might feel confident that they won’t mind what they find.  But what if a student or colleague makes a complaint about you, and suddenly you find yourself under investigation by the Title IX office? This happened to the well-known feminist professor, Laura Kipnis, at Northwestern University, when students complained that they did not like the  view Kipnis expressed in an article she wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Yes, writing something for a professional publication “triggered” students on Kipnis’ campus and they filed a Title IX complaint against her, which got her investigated.  Once some university official goes on a fishing expedition through your electronic files, they are bound to find something that looks incriminating. Maybe you received spam that makes it appear as if you are running a business on your university-issued computer.  Maybe an uncle you only see once a year sends you strange sexually explicit jokes over email. Maybe your actual teaching or research looks suspicious to untrained, prying eyes. And so you could suffer severe consequence—ie., be reprimanded, fired, or prosecuted legally—thanks to the unfettered access a bad technology policy could give supervisors, administrators, and even campus police.

A “no expectation of privacy” statement gives them blanket permission to go snooping.  

As scholars who value academic freedom and the true purpose of higher education in a democratic society, urge your Faculty Senate representative to demand the removal of the “no expectation of privacy” statement in the revised Policy 901.

BLOG POST UPDATE (as of Feb. 2019): The Faculty Senate Technology Committee along with the Chief Information Officer formed an advisory group of stakeholders, including faculty members, to examine and revise the Policy 901.  That working group, which will be meeting some time in spring 2019, includes the following faculty members:

Randy Reed (Senate Campus Tech Committee, Philosophy and Religion)
Regina Hartley ( Senate Campus Tech Committee, Computer Information Systems)
Martha McCaughey (Senate, At-Large, Sociology) 
Becki Turpin (Senate, Nursing)
Agnes Gambill (Library)

The Appalachian State AAUP chapter strongly encourages readers to give their thoughts on this matter in the “comments” section below.

Note: This post is a report on matters of interest to the AAUP chapter, not an official statement by the Chapter.

App State Professor to Faculty Senate: Dumbfounded by “Zero Salary Raises”

On November 12, Appalachian State’s Faculty Senate voted 38 to 2 (with one abstention) to approve a resolution calling on the university administration to revisit a budget allocation that had denied faculty UNC Board of Governor-approved merit raises (the background to how the North Carolina legislature failed to give UNC faculty raises while giving them to all other state employees can be read here). The resolution was proposed by Leigh Dunston, who represents the Department of Finance, Banking, and Insurance (where he is executive-in-residence). The following are the remarks he made in support of his resolution. A video recording of the meeting is available here; Dunston’s remarks occur between 37:30 and 58:13).

The point I wanted to discuss today was the decision by our administration to give zero salary raises this budget year.

Now when I first learned of this decision, I was surprised, dumbfounded—I couldn’t believe it. And the reason I was so surprised is that the Zeitgeist and the sense that I have about what’s going on in our country and specifically in our state is that it is an era of almost unprecedented prosperity. That is what we have been told, that is what some if not all [inaudible].

So in an era of almost unprecedented prosperity, the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s, it turns out that this faculty—this faculty of which I have been a proud member—a proud member—for sixteen, almost seventeen years—this faculty was awarded a zero—zero–salary raise.

Dunston Senate 11-12-2018

This is incomprehensible to me. And so I asked [the Senate Chair] to kindly agree to put this on the agenda and to move it to a place of some prominence, because she, I think, agrees that this is an issue of great importance—that we would have a zero raise in an era of unprecedented prosperity.

The context of this is very interesting. The context of this is that we have had a decade of austerity for ourselves. That’s the context in which, in an era of prosperity, we are awarded zero. That’s the context. So that’s what makes it so discordant and dissonant.

And so I come here, I’m going to hand out, at the end of the little presentation I’m going to hand out a proposed resolution, and the essence of that resolution [see appendix C], which we will all have a chance to discuss, and I hope we will, is that we are going to ask—I am asking you to vote to ask our administration to reallocate money this year to assure that we do not have a zero salary raise. That is the essence of the resolution that I am going to ask you to vote for and that I am advocating.

Now look, I understand that the atmosphere we are in politically is from the standpoint of the [University of North Carolina] Board of Governors of the State of North Carolina—I think I understand—I think I understand quite well—maybe not as well as some of our administrators understand and have to contend with—that there is a squeeze. Even in this era of surplus and prosperity, the people on the legislature and the Board of Governors are squeezing the North Carolina university system financially. We get it. We understand that. We understand that our administrators are under great pressure to make very, very hard decisions.

But for the decision they made, I would sympathize with them. But I can’t sympathize because I find the decision they made so inappropriate. So I can’t sympathize. But I know they are under great, great pressure to make very hard decisions with very limited resources because the people who appropriate those resources and the people who decide where they will go, have decided that this university system should be starved of resources. That’s not their fault. And it certainly is not our fault. It certainly is not our fault.

[…] There is a three-legged stool. We educate students—one leg—we are the faculty, we teach them, and we try to teach them at every level about substantive material and hopefully, indirectly, about how they may conduct a useful, ethical life. And the third leg of the stool is our administration, who help us keep it moving forward, and hopefully every year better and better.

The problem, of course, in that analysis is that the leg of the stool that is us, that is the faculty, the faculty that we represent, is being starved, is being arguably disrespected.

And so in the end, when one leg of the stool is being treated so poorly, and so inequitably, … the institution, the institution itself, begins to fall away institutionally, it just begins to lose its strength, its power, and its essence. That’s the institutional piece.

The more personal piece for us as faculty is, we’re all professionals. We are all professionals. This is the best part of a life—of a long career—I’ve ever had. To be a teacher at Appalachian. I was a trial lawyer for most of my career. But the best of my life has been here. Teaching students. Learning more from my students than I teach them. It’s the best part of my life. I suspect—my wife tells me that it’s probably [prolonged my] life—though I’m not sure how I feel about that. I think it has prolonged my life. And I’m very, very proud to be among you. And it is the best part of my life.

And I have never, ever been so concerned and so distressed as I have been as this fact of zero salary increases has sunk into my consciousness and I have evaluated how this has happened and why it has happened. There are political reasons why it has happened at the state level, and I understand that. But it happened here, and our administrators made choices that I profoundly disagree with.

So—sorry, I got a little emotional, I feel very strongly about this—so, undoubtedly, in the decade of austerity that we have gone through, with salaries, there is salary compression—we all understand what that is. As it relates to our peer group, we are either at the bottom or very low and moving lower in our peer group as it relates to salaries. Salary compression; faculty retention is an issue that is being made worse by this. Faculty recruitment is an issue that is becoming increasingly difficult. Sometimes—I hear, I’ve got to be careful, I don’t have all the statistics—but I hear that searches are failing because we simply cannot be competitive. And make no mistake, faculty morale is in decline.

[…] You know, I practiced law for a number of years. And I always wonder when I hear one of my law partners say: “I really do this for the love of the law.” Excuse me! Excuse me! Pardon me! I was on the compensation committee of my law firm for over twenty years: professionals need to have a signification of their value as professionals. And the signal we are getting, the signal we have gotten for a decade is that we are not sufficiently valued and that we are devalued. It is a terrible signal, and the problem with the signal is that it doesn’t just relate to money. It relates to our own sense of ourselves. It relates to our sense of self-worth which then translates, whether consciously or subconsciously, into how we actually act our profession.

This is an enormous issue. Much bigger than just the bucks. Much bigger.

I want to talk a little about transparency and shared governance. The first time we learned that we were going to have a zero salary increase was when the Director of Human Services sent us a memorandum on September 26 of this year. The memorandum was from […] the director of human resources. It went on for two pages, maybe two-and-half pages. In the last paragraph of that memorandum, [the director] writes “Unfortunately, for the first time in five years we will not be able to provide an annual raise process for EHRA and non-EHRA faculty employees this year.” That’s us.

That’s the first time we heard about this from anybody in our administration. First time. As best I can tell, the first time our administration heard about this—about the fact that they were going to have to make choices—hard, hard, hard choices—and set priorities with not-sufficient funds—was on August 6. And in that August 6 memorandum coming from the Board of Governors, that memorandum—here’s what that memorandum said. That memorandum said, it gave all universities […] in the North Carolina university system, including ASU, the discretion to award merit raises of up to 4.99% of current base salary.

So at the same time as the powers that be on the legislature and the Board of Governors give discretion to our administration to award merit increases up to 4.99—let’s call it 5%–they don’t give them sufficient funds to do anything like that, and put them in a terrible box. Now the box we’re talking about is very obvious. It’s so obvious: if you don’t have sufficient money to make anything close to 4.99 or 3.2 or whatever, the box you’re in is that you’ve got to make hard choices and set priorities.

And the concern I have and that I hope you will share with me today is that those priorities and choices under a decade of austerity for this faculty were wrong. Dead wrong. Not a little wrong. A lot wrong. That doesn’t mean that I and you should not appreciate how difficult that task is. It doesn’t mean that at all.

We can do both things. We can appreciate how difficult their job is. And we can completely disagree with it.

Now let’s talk about some of the nitty-gritty that impacts all of us. Inflation is running at 2 to 2.5%. Our health care premiums continue to go up. What this means in a zero salary increase analysis is we are turning around and going backwards. Fast.

Finally, the provost alluded to a meeting the budget committee had with him and Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Paul Forte this morning and I think it was very useful, and I think the chair of the budget committee […] will report on that. So there is some hope. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves. We really shouldn’t kid ourselves. We need to understand that we need to send a strong message—strong message—to our administration that we believe they need to reevaluate funds that are at their discretion so that there is a faculty raise this year. Not next year. Not on the hope that the political winds will change and there’ll be more rational people on the Board of Governors. Not on a hope, not on a prayer. But reallocate now. Reallocate now so that this crazy situation has developed over this decade in this state, and this totally anomalous nonsense of giving zero salary raises in an era of prosperity, in a decade of austerity must end.


This meeting was reported in The Appalachian and the Watauga Democrat.

The Appalachian State AAUP chapter strongly encourages readers to give their thoughts on this matter in the “comments” section below.

(Note: This post is a report on matters of interest to the chapter, not an official statement by the chapter).