TO THE PRESIDENT AND
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
IN REFERENCE TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND
MAINTENANCE OF AN
EQUITABLE SALARY
SCALE FOR THE FACUL¬
TIES OF THE ACADEMIC
SCHOOLS OF HOWARD
UNIVERSITY
+
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
Washington, D. C. February 1, 1921
mediums. The result has been that in practically every progressive commu¬
nity and in every important institution of learning very substantial increases in
the salary scales have resulted, ranging from thirty to one hundred per cent.
Practically all of the important colleges and universities have found means to
keep pace with the demands of the situation by putting under contribution all
the resources of the institution to the exclusion of the less important—because
non-human—elements. A recent bulletin of the United States Bureau of Edu¬
cation says:
"Undoubtedly the most critical question now before the university and
college public is the question of salaries. The avowed purpose of many of the
drives for additional funds for the support of the higher institutions is the
increasing of the salaries of college officers and teachers. It is well known that
the general level of such salaries is far below what it was ten years ago.
"The cause of university and college teachers, for which administrators are
now earnestly workings etc., etc. * * *" (Bulletin No. 20, 1920).
We are repeating briefly the arguments with special application to our own
case because Howard University has not yet followed the lead of the best
universities of the country in this respect. And we repeat them with the hope
and expectation that each member of the Board of Trustees will consider the
matter a personal responsibility and will give his sympathy and his influence
in bringing about the ends sought.
An analysis of the requirements for a high morale, as set forth above, will
indicate that in the case of the faculty of Howard University not one of them
has been met.
A. The Present Salaries Inadequate for Present Needs.
Assuming that the teaching staff is made up largely of married men, it is
evident, according to the computation of some of our best experts in economics
that the salaries now paid do not provide even a living wage to say nothing of
a cultural wage which, by all means, should be the right of every teacher to
whom is intrusted for development, the most cherished possession of a people,
its children.
Thirty years ago when the purchasing power of a dollar was about three
times what it is today, the salary of a full professor was $1,500 and a house,
later evaluated at $400 per annum, making a total of $1,900. About ten years
ago an increase of ten per cent was granted, raising it to $2,050. In 1917 a
flat addition of $120 was made on the complaint of the faculty that they had
not been included in the war bonus. This brought the final figure to $2,170
as the salary of a full professor. The increases of last year were applied in
adjustments relative to that standard. This means that in thirty years the
salary of a full professor which is the index of a university salary scale, has
been increased about twelve per cent while the cost of living at the most con¬
servative estimate has increased 200 per cent. In other words, the salary today
is only one-third in purchasing power of what it was in 1890. If the salary of
$1,500 and a house was fair at that time the salary today should be $4,500 and
a house.
The teaching staff has not been getting a fair share of the increase in uni¬
versity expenditures which in 30 years have multiplied about ten fold. Neither
the number of students nor the faculty has increased at that rate so that other
costs must have responded to the rise in prices while the teacher's salary was
held practically static. This has been a manifest injustice which the faculty
realizes for it has been made to suffer. Practically every teacher in the statt
has found it more and more difficult as the years have gone by to meet the
requirements of life. And during the past two years the case has become so
desperate that either the scant savings have been seriously reduced or some
other member of the family has been compelled to supplement the income.
B. Present Salaries Make Preparation for the Future Impossible.
This proposition follows the first as a matter of course. As mentioned
above, such meager savings as had been laid aside have been seriously impaired
by the experiences of the past three years when most of our expenditures sur¬
passed our incomes. It is a fact that little preparation for the future is pos¬
sible except, in some cases, the maintenance of life insurance policies.
C. No Adequate Opportunity for the Pursuit of Scholarship.
The broadening and culturing effect of travel is everywhere recognized. In
a standard university it is no uncommon thing for members of the staff to
travel abroad for the purpose of extending their culture. Indeed, it is ex¬
pected of them, especially those engaged in certain fields of knowledge. The
low salaries paid here preclude this form of improvement. Few are able to
travel to any considerable extent even in this country, and only one native mem¬
ber of the academic staff of Howard University has traveled abroad exten¬
sively; and this one is fortunate enough to possess an independent income.
Our inability to travel or to hope to travel is a serious handicap to us in our
larger development and a misfortune to our students. Under the present
circumstances the best that we can do is to attempt some study by attendance
upon summer school, or as is being done this year, through leave of absence.
In either case the study is carried on under too great pressure for the best
results.
D. Discontent and Restlessness the Result of the Economic Pressure.
Possibly the most serious effect of the situation under discussion is the dis¬
content and restlessness of the teaching staff. While from the standpoint of
the administration our positions are reasonably permanent, yet from the
teacher's own standpoint, there is constantly present the feeling that in order
to fulfill his obligations to his family, indeed, too often in order to make ends
meet, it would be better to leave the profession and enter some other occupation
offering more lucrative returns. For however sacred the calling of the teacher,
the economic demands of the day make no allowance for that quality. The
teacher must buy in the same markets as the members of the other professions
whose incomes are several times as large and is compelled to conform to the
same social requirements. To meet the situation either some outside work
must be engaged in or some other member of the family must be gainfully em¬
ployed. The faculty of Howard University feels that neither recourse should
be necessary. Nor should they be compelled, as they reach middle life, to re¬
gret their choice of a vocation because of the terrible financial sacrifice en¬
tailed. The thing that holds the faculty to its job is the "academic devotion"
which we hear so much about, coupled with the abiding belief that those ad¬
ministering the affairs of the University will awaken to the need and apply the
remedy. We are confident that when the conditions are realized by the in¬
dividual members of the Board of Trustees this devotion will not be penalized
longer by the continuation of the inadequate salary scale now in operation.
S
E. Limited Opportunity for the Adequate Enjoyment of Leisure.
The question of the enjoyment of leisure is closely related to the foregoing.
If the enjoyment of leisure demanded time only we could get considerable en¬
joyment. But unless the leisure is to become monotonous it must offer oppor¬
tunity for the enjoyment of things that cost money. The rest of the world
knows this and acts accordingly. Why then, should the teacher be condemned
to stoicism through penury? Is there any member of the social group who
should be more cheerful, wide-awake, whole-hearted, social, or vital than the
teacher? According to the direct testimony of the members of the faculty the
periods that should be devoted to such activities are too often taken up in the
performance of household duties or in some other occupation engaged in to
supplement the salary. Members of our faculty work as agents, photographers,
government clerks, secretaries, salesmen, and at other non-academic activities
and thereby not only sacrifice their leisure but also impair their efficiency in
their true vocation.
The faculty in presenting this memorial is very anxious to impress your
honorable body with its belief in the justice, the reasonableness, and the time¬
liness of the request made. Nor are we asking for more than we expect in
order to make allowances for the usual discount. We have studied the situ¬
ation from every angle and make our proposition in full realization of its im¬
port, and in full confidence in its justice. We, therefore, anticipate two per¬
tinent inquiries which always follow such requests:
First. What is a fair salary for a professor in Howard University
and why?
Second. How is the necessary revenue to be provided?
First. The determination of the salary of the full professor as the
index of the scale.
(1) Calculation based on the loss in purchasing power of the dollar.
Basing our estimate on the salary scale of a generation ago when the full
professor received $1,500 and a house and when the purchasing power of a
dollar was about three times what it is today we reach the conclusion that the
full professor today should receive $4,500 and a house.
(2) Calculation based on the relative values of a full professor and a
beginner.
Former President Eliot in his book "University Administration" makes the
salary of a full professor about four times that of a teacher beginning his
career in college. Howard University would certainly not offer a beginner
today less than $1,000 a year and even then would not be likely to find very
promising material, since high schools all over the country are daily offering
better salaries than that for beginners. Using that figure, however, as a min¬
imum for a beginner, according to the authority just quoted, a full professor at
Howard should receive a salary of $4,000 a year.
Bulletin No. 20, 1920, of the United States Bureau of Education which
contains an exhaustive study of college salaries, shows that in practice, taking
averages in public and private institutions, this ratio is actually maintained.
6
To do so here therefore, would be in accordance with the practice in American
colleges.
(3) Calculation based upon the salaries of the teachers in the public
schools of the District of Columbia.
It has been shown above that the salary scale at Howard University has
practically stood still while' the cost of living has been rising. A comparison
of the change in the salary scales in the Washington high schools and those
in Howard University during part of this period offers food for serious reflec¬
tion and emphasizes the need for adjustments. About the year 1898 when the
salary of a professor at Howard University was $1,900, the highest paid teach¬
ers in M Street High School (now Dftnbar) received less than $1,000 per
year, the average for experienced teachers being about $800. Beginners were
appointed at $50 per month. At that time the compensation of the principal
of the M Street High School was considerably less than that of a full professor
in Howard University, counting his house as a part of his salary. Indeed, this
was the case as late as 1906, at which time the principal of M Street High
School was paid $1,700 per year. During the intervening years the salaries
of high school teachers, although always inadequate, have been regularly in¬
creased to meet the rising cost of living, while the scale of salaries at Howard
University has remained practically unaltered. The result is that, whereas in
1898 the compensation of a full professor of Howard University was about
two and one-half times the average salary of the teachers in the M Street High
School, today the high school teacher receives considerably more than the col¬
lege professor. If the original ratio had been maintained (and no one argues
that it should not have been) the present salary of a college professor would
be about $5,000 and a house.
Since both groups of teachers just referred to must meet the economic and
social demands of exactly the same community, a further comparison of the
salaries of the teachers in the public schools of the District of Columbia with
those in Howard University is appropriate here.
In the District of Columbia where the salaries of public school teachers are
admittedly inadequate, the maximum/ salaries for regular teachers without
official duties are as follows:
Elementary schools $1,840.00
Hicli schools, without promotion $2,480.00
High schools, with promotions $2,740.00
These salaries do not refer to any positions involving supervisory duties.
Such salaries are of course on a higher scale.
In Howard University the highest salary paid a full professor (and. only
two receive the maximum) is only $2,200 while the salaries of associate and as¬
sistant professors and instructors are proportionately less.
A dean in Howard University is paid $20 more a year than a high school
teacher in Class A and $240 less than a high school teacher in Class B.
A full professor receives $280 less than a high school teacher in Class A,
and $540 less than a high school teacher in Class B.
An associate professor, who in academic circles represents ripe scholar¬
ship and years of successful experience, receives a compensation less by $40
than the salary of a teacher in the eighth grade in the same community.
iy
The salaries of assistant professors and instructors are so low as to be com¬
parable only with those teachers in the elementary schools who have just been
appointed and are serving a probationary period.
As a result of this startling disparity in salaries we have the strange situ¬
ation of students who, having finished the Washington high schools where they
have received instruction from teachers paid as high as $2,740, on entering
Howard University for their college course receive instruction from teachers
whose salaries are far below that figure. Since these facts are well known in
the community, it is inevitable that the opinion should gain currency that the
faculty of Howard University is decidedly inferior in quality to the faculties
of the high schools and on a par with those of the elementary schools.
To restore the relative values existing twenty years ago between the salaries
of local high school and college teachers, a full professor should be granted a
salary of approximately $5,000 a year.
In making the above comparison it was stated that the salaries paid in the
public schools are admittedly inadequate. Expert opinion bears out this state¬
ment. In a preliminary survey of the schools of the District of Columbia made
under the direction of the United States Commissioner of Education, recom¬
mendations are made in regard to classification and salaries which provide five
groups of teachers based upon preparation, experience and efficiency. Accord¬
ing to this scheme a high school teacher begins at $1,500 and if satisfactory,
advances to $3,300 in twelve years, which is the highest salary in Group B.
It will hardly be disputed that college professors living in the same com¬
munity should be rated in a higher salary class. This would give them a salary
equivalent to that of the next higher class in the scale recommended by the
survey commission (Group C) which runs from $3,300 to $4,200. It is gener¬
ally felt, however, in university circles, that in salary, a full professor in college
should rank at least with a high school principal. Group D for high school
principals, whose salaries in the District of Columbia twenty years ago were
below those of college professors at Howard University,'provides salaries with
a minimum of $4,000 and a maximum of $4,900. Considering either Group C
or D, as the proper relative salary for a college professor in Howard Univer¬
sity we have a range of from $3,300 to $4,900 or an average of $4,100.
(4) Calculation based upon the standards for college salaries as estab¬
lished by American practice.
The trustees, administrative officers and faculty of Howard University are
earnestly striving to make it an institution of the first class in every respect in
order that it may be so recognized in the academic world and,that its students
and graduates may be admitted to the same academic and professional privi¬
leges as those from the best universities of the country. Among these require¬
ments, as stated by all the accrediting authorities, the salary scale is an im¬
portant item, the theory being that the rate of compensation is a fair index of
the academic ideals of the institution and of the quality of the teaching, even
when due allowance is made for the missionary nature of the vocation. It fol¬
lows therefore, that while we are attempting to standardize our courses, our
methods of record keeping, our calendar, our physical equipment, etc., we must
standardize our salaries also. The inevitable alternative is to confess to a
deficiency in this item of standard requirements.
More than a quarter of a century ago when the salary of a full professor at
Howard University was first fixed at $1,500 and a house it was approximately
8
on a par with the compensation granted for the same position in other colleges
of the same grade in the North and West. At that time the pay of a professor
at Oberlin, for example, was about that figure while similar salaries at the
large universities ranged upwards to abput twice that sum, but seldom beyond.
The Bureau of Education, in its bulletin showing the college salaries for the
year 1919-1920 frequently reports from $4,000 to $10,000 as the compensa¬
tion for a full professor. Because of the important increases so generally
granted throughout the country, which became effective in September, 1920, the
scale today is generally higher than appears in that report. It seems fair to
assume that if twenty-five years ago the salary of a professor at Howard
University was equal to that paid at Oberlin and approximately one half of that
paid at Harvard. Columbia, or Michigan, the same ratio should hold today.
Since at Oberlin a full professor now receives $4,500 per year and at the other
universities named, about $8,000, it is evident that the salary of a full professor
here should be something over $4,000 per year. The facts clearly indicate that
Howard University has fallen far behind the academic movement of the coun¬
try in the adjustment of their salary schedule with the single exception of the
salary of the President.
(5) Calculation based upon the ratios established by American prac¬
tice for salaries of different grades.
Bulletin No. 20, 1920, of the Bureau of Education just referred to summar¬
izes the salaries for the different grades in American colleges and univer¬
sities, giving the facts for 364 colleges and universities and dividing them into
two classes designated respectively as Public and Private institutions. For
obvious reasons numbers are used instead of names for the institutions report¬
ing. In another bulletin, however, Howard University is classed among the
Public institutions. It is fair therefore to consider it in connection with this
group.
It is gratifying to find from the figures given in that report that in the
salary of the President Howard University stands above the median salary for
the seventy-seven state supported colleges and universities listed. This, in our
judgment, is as it should be and places Howard University just about where it
stands in other respects in relation to the universities of the country. In this
group $12,500 is the highest salary paid a president and $6,000 the median.
As already noted, however, these figures have been raised during the past year
by the general increases granted in the academic world. In this summary a com¬
parison of the median salaries for the various grades of officers and teachers
from president to instructor shows the following ratio:
President 12; Dean or Director 7; Professor 6; Associate Professor 5; As¬
sistant Professor 4; Instructor 3.
Stated in another way, this means that in American colleges a dean receives
7/12; a professor 6/12; an associate professor 5/12; an assistant professor
4/12; and an instructor 3/12 of the salary of the president. Applying this
ratio here the full professor should receive one-half the highest compensation
paid or between $4,000 and $4,500.
In our attempt to determine upon a figure as a fair salary for a full pro¬
fessor we have approached the question from five different points of view and
9
have in each case arrived at a figure between four and five thousand dollars.
We realize that no arbitrary amount based upon feelings or opinions could be
chosen and justified. We have, therefore, studied the subject scientifically and
based our request on the findings. The figure arrived at is not the smallest
amount that we could live on nor the largest amount that we should like to
receive. It is the resultant of several lines of reasoning, and hence scientific.
It is therefore right. If we asked for more or less as the salary of a full pro¬
fessor we should not be acting in accordance with the evidence.
Second. Source of the Necessary Revenue.
The question of the source of revenue is, of course, an important one. To
date, however, Howard Univeristy has depended mainly upon the Congress of
the United States to supply funds for its maintenance. That the authorities
still rely upon this source to an extent even greater than before is indicated by
the magnitude of the estimates presented to Congress for the past two years.
In our opinion it is from this same source for the present that the University
must expect to derive revenue for the establishment and maintenance of the
salary scale suggested and it is our belief that the salary appeal, if made
prominent enough, will be favorably received.
When in the year 1919, your honorable body voted favorably on a proposed
new salary scale the faculty felt that at last some definite action toward their
relief had been taken. We assumed that in the large estimates to be presented
to Congress, adequate provision would be made to put this into operation.
When, however, the estimates as published were found to include only $30,000
for increases in salaries it was realized at once that this scale was not to be put
into operation. It was feared too that, because of the relative insignificance of
the item for salaries in comparison with the large sums requested for other im¬
provement, its importance would be dwarfed. Only $14,000 was allowed for
increases in salaries, an amount so meager that the administration was com¬
pelled to choose between its use for the salaries of much needed additions to
the teaching staff and immediate salary adjustments for the present faculty.
At the meeting of your honorable body in June, 1920, the questions of sal¬
aries was brought very definitely to your attention through a memorial from the
faculty presented by a select committee of that body. We fully expected, as a
result of our request, that the item for the increases in salaries would be made
more prominent in the estimates for 1921-1922 and form a larger proportion
of the whole in order that an adequate scale might be put into effect at the
opening of school for the Autumn Quarter, 1921. The attitude of the faculty,
therefore, was little short of consternation when it learned that in the esti¬
mates, as presented to the Secretary of the Interior in September, 1920, to
apply to the fiscal year 1921-1922 the amount for increases in salaries was even
less than before, amounting to only $16,000 and formed even a smaller frac¬
tion of the total increases asked. The faculty, on learning this through the pub¬
lic press, immediately did what it could to have this amount changed through
a conference with the administrative officers of the University to whom the case
was presented with definite recommendations. So far as immediate results
were concerned, however, our efforts were unsuccessful for the bill, as finally
presented to Congress setting forth the needs of the University for the year
1921-1922 carried the original item for only $16,000 for increases in the sal¬
aries of instructors as against over a million dollars in increases for other im¬
provements. This amount, if received, will hardly be adequate to pro-
10
vide for the necessary additions to the teaching staff, leaving no pro¬
vision whatever, for any substantial increase in the salary scale.
In reply, then, to the inquiry concerning the source of the revenue necessary
to put into operation and to maintain the salary scale as proposed, we point to
the same source from which we expect funds for other expenses. What we
urge is that the provisions for salary be given a much more prominent place in
the estimates. Indeed, as indicated at the outset, in view of the facts set forth
in this memorial, the most important task just now before your honorable body
in its effect upon the morale of the University is the provision of an adequate
salary scale for the teaching staff. For this reason we sincerely hope that the
administrative officers and the trustees will stress this matter before Congress
for the present even if necessary to the exclusion of other items.
In view of the facts set forth in this memorial we respectfully request
First, that a definite salary scale be established for the faculty of
the academic schools making the compensation of the full professor
$4,000 a year with the other salaries related to this figure in the ratio
given above.
Second, that the sums necessary to establish and maintain this
scale be included each year in the estimates submitted to Congress
through the Secretary of the Interior and that, until secured they be
given preferential consideration over items involving material expan¬
sion only.
Third, that some steps be taken at once to provide for substantial
increases for the year 1921-1822.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed)
Wm. J. Bauduit
E. P. Davis
McLeod Harvey
D. O. W. Holmes
Alain LeRoy Locke
Kelly Miller
St. Elmo Brady
Alonzo H. Brown
W. N. Buckner
Albert I. Cassell
Lulu Vere Childers
Madeline V. Coleman
William Coleman
Geo. Wm. Cook
Elisabeth A. Cook
M. T. Dean
Walter Dyson
Mary A. Fitch
Montgomery Gregory
Joseph Harrison
Harold D. Hatfield
Wm. A. Hazel
Mabel M. Jackson
L. Z. Johnson
E. E. Just
C. Beatrice Lewis
George M. Lightfoot
Metz T. P. Lochard
E. J. Marshall
W. E. Morrison
E. L. Parks
Harry L. Pelham
Estelle E. Pinkney
Ernest M. Pollard
R. E. Schuh
Chas. S. Syphax
O. C. Thornton
R. W. Tibbs
Helen Tuck
William V. Tunnell
L. D. Turner
J. H. N. Waring, Jr.
E. C. Williams
D. W. WoODARD
Howard University, Washington, D. C., February 1, 1921.
i I