Politicians’ “bread and circuses” patronage was criticized as a technique of control by the Roman poet Juvenal. On Oct. 12, Virginia Tech President Charles Steger continued to put this adage into practice.
The invitation read: “The Student Government Association is teaming up with President Steger for an amazing opportunity to interact with the President himself. If you are one of the 475 lucky students selected, you will be watching “No Impact Man” and eating free popcorn, courtesy of the President. At the movie’s conclusion, there will be a 15-30 minute Q & A session related to anything Virginia Tech! President Steger really wants to get to know students on a personal level, because he genuinely cares about you and your experience at Virginia Tech!”
After the mediocre documentary had dulled our minds, he answered tepid questions from a few pre-selected students. The first asked, “Do you have office hours to meet with students?” Steger replied, “I am very busy and my handlers usually don’t give me that much time. I am gone about half the time. Each month I have two luncheons, one with undergraduate and one with graduate students.” (I could not write down the exact wording but am paraphrasing accurately.) The student rephrased the question. “Will you consider having office hours?” “I will consider it,” he responded.
Another student asked about sustainability on campus. He replied that there are three initiatives: switching to carbon fluorescent light bulbs, installing energy monitors throughout in campus grid and lawn restoration, where mowed areas are replaced with meadows. The earlier significant greenhouse gas cuts, proposed and supported by an active student and faculty environmental movement, are off the table.
After he generously donated seven minutes of his time to us, no questions were allowed from the floor. It is rather difficult to “get to know students on a personal level” during “a 15-30 minute Q & A session” that lasts less than 10.
So, I approached him afterwards. “The budget is going to be cut by 15 percent next year —”
“That is one of the options being considered,” he interrupted.
“— according to university spokesperson Larry Hincker. By what percent are you going to cut your salary?”
“The Board of Visitors sets my salary,” he said. “There are no plans to cut it.”
“How many times have you flown on a university private plane this semester?” I asked.
“I don’t know.”
“You don’t know?”
“I don’t keep track.”
"
“You don’t know whether you’ve been on a plane zero or 10 times?”
“Sometimes I use it several times a week. I get three times as much done using a plane. We’re in the midst of a $1 billion capital campaign right now. Which would you prefer?”
“You could drive to Richmond,” I said.
“No, sometimes I go to Richmond, then to Washington, in the same day. I work 70-80 hours a week. So I don’t buy that.”
His statements contradicted other university positions. In “Kaine levies another round of budget cuts” (CT, Sept. 9), Hincker was quoted as saying that “this is the worst-case scenario. We’ve got a 15 percent budget reduction.”
The same article noted “a one-day furlough, or unpaid leave of absence, is also being mandated for all university employees in the latest plan from the governor.”
Steger’s response concerning his unchanging salary can be read in several ways. First, he may be unaware that the budget is being cut for “all university employees,” including himself. Second, in his mind he may reflexively exempt himself from these cuts because he believes that he is amazing. Third, he and his advisers may in reality be insulated from budget cuts. If his $457,040 salary is not being cut, while cooks’ salaries are, this deserves further exploration. Generally, we should question why he makes $57,040 more than President Barack Obama.
The article “Steger lobbies in Richmond” (CT, March 24, 2008), stated “President Steger made four expeditions to Richmond,” although he “occasionally drives as well.” If we assume that Steger actually knows whether or not he is in a plane, which is not a sure bet, this means that the spokesperson quoted on March 24 was incorrect.
Throughout the night, the message was straightforward: He is going to run the university how he thinks it should be run, and if this doesn’t correspond with the will of the masses, they must be distracted by bread and circuses, paid out of their own pockets (“free popcorn, courtesy of the President himself”).
This theory of governance is not unusual. It is representative democracy, where the rabbles are kept out of decisions because of their idiocy. Steger probably thinks (“genuinely cares”) that the money we pay for his fine hotels is both out of our gratitude and for the general good. We have seen his false dichotomy: Either he flies in private planes or the university doesn’t get one billion dollars.
In “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand depicts a corrupt businessperson who, driving his company into the ground, tells his impoverished workers that he must live lavishly in order to keep up appearances for outside investors.
The general disregard for students is also evident in the recently completed, astoundingly inept, $300,000 Class of ’59 Graduate Life Center Plaza and Amphitheatre. Months of work resulted in knocking down a wall, rebuilding it and turning on a broken fountain. We could have gotten the same results if we had paid 20 bucks to a couple of mechanical engineering students.
The familiar rejoinder from the administration is that this money came in privately and could not have been used on anything else. This line of reasoning begs a few questions. If this fundraiser netted $300,000, how much money could have been raised if the drive was for scholarships and academics? What percentage of the faculty and students were asked about and supported this use of resources? Was the percentage greater than zero?
The familiar, vacuous refrain sheds light on how the university operates. Our great leaders will deign to grant token representation to students, faculty and minorities. In the end, these three special interests represent virtually everyone. But when real decisions are on the line, we will be informed that in our leaders’ beneficence they “will consider it,” because we are too dumb to be trusted. To ensure accountability, they pass out popcorn; to mitigate global warming, they change light bulbs; to increase diversity, they put on cultural awareness weeks.
When the Roman poet wrote, he criticized leaders for deceiving their populations and the people for putting up with it. On the contrary, Virginia Tech students are engaged and eager to shape the policies that affect their lives. One solution is simple and obvious: hold yearly plebiscites on decisions that govern the university, including allocation of resources. This will never happen, because for a few dozen of our titular betters, the thought of students and faculty banding together is a dangerous form of democracy.