Another Big Ten president is on the way.
Less than two weeks after Michigan State University gave President Kevin Guskiewicz a $1 million raise, doubling his annual compensation to $2 million, to fend off headhunters, he’s leaving to take the top job at Clemson University.
When the MSU administration suggested that the money be increased, they said that Guskiewicz was forcibly hired by other institutions and noted his displeasure with the board. Although trustees did not specify the nature of that frustration, Michigan State’s board has been embroiled in drama in recent years, accused of retaliating against faculty members and former presidents.
Now, just two years later, Guskiewicz is headed to Clemson. In making the team he will take a pay cut, reportedly earning an annual salary of $1.2 million on a five-year contract. (Additional incentives, such as deferred compensation and bonuses, will push that number up.) Guskiewicz will lead the major research university for the third time, following a stint at MSU and four years as chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“I have known for many years how special Clemson University is, and I am honored by the opportunity to build on an incredible tradition of excellence and help lead the University into the future,” Guskiewicz said in the hiring announcement. “I look forward to engaging with students, faculty, staff, alumni and the many South Carolinians whose passion and support have shaped Clemson into one of the world’s leading public research universities.
On his way out, Guskiewicz also noted major concerns about governance at Michigan State, though he did not elaborate on specific incidents.
In a statement to the MSU community, he wrote that “effective university leadership requires a shared commitment to cooperation, trust and a forward-looking vision,” but that some board members have spent more energy “revising past conflicts and internal disagreements.”
He also accused MSU board members of pursuing their own agendas.
“While I strongly believe that we are all better off when there are diverse perspectives informing decisions, our ability to make meaningful progress is hindered when disagreements range from offering alternative opinions to publicly undermining decisions and putting individual interests above the interests of the university and our faculty, staff and students,” Guskiewicz wrote in his statement. “What is more worrying is the actions of others to misuse their access to private and confidential information to misrepresent it. [sic] facts, manipulate situations and selectively use and leak that information to advance a personal agenda.”
Despite the board’s dysfunction, Guskiewicz praised the five members who voted earlier this month to approve the new code of conduct, which he said is in line with best practices but has been rejected by other trustees as a gag order. (Two trustees—Mike Balow and Rema Vassar—have faced university disciplinary action for refusing to sign the agreement.)
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, also chastised the board.
“This is disappointing, but no one should be surprised by this result given the other antics we’ve seen from a few board members,” Whitmer said at a press conference. Detroit news. He also added that “the way we chose board members must change” and he nodded to the current proposal in the Federal Assembly to appoint trustees, which he said, “will help to ensure that the institutions have the leadership and expertise to restore things to the right state.”
Under the current system, trustees are elected to eight terms.
Answering questions sent by email from Within Higher Ed regarding trustee conduct and leadership changes, a Michigan State spokeswoman shared a statement from board chair Brianna Scott.
“We greatly appreciate the past two-plus years under President Guskiewicz,” Scott wrote in a statement. “His leadership has set the university on a good path and we can continue through this transition. Michigan State University has shown resilience throughout its history, and the strength of the institution has never depended on any one person. The university’s mission, talent and momentum continue as it has for nearly 175 years.”
Fiduciary Disagreement
Guskiewicz’s departure underscores the leadership instability at both Big Ten and MSU institutions. The leaders of more than half of the Big Ten’s member institutions have left their roles as of early 2025.
Leadership turnover at Michigan State has also been high since longtime president Lou Anna K. Simon resigned amid a sexual harassment scandal in 2018. Since then, MSU has had a revolving door of interim leaders, with two presidents serving consecutive five-year terms.
Outside observers noted that Guskiewicz’s departure was more than just another presidential change; it shows deep problems with governance at Michigan State.
Robert Kelchen, a professor of education at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, said Within Higher Ed that Guskiewicz’s early exit “shows that Michigan State has one of the toughest leadership jobs in the country.” Despite the challenges of running a large research business with big games, he said, presidents must use an elected but diverse board.
With Clemson—led by a board largely appointed by state officials in a state long dominated by Republicans—Kelchen asserted that Guskiewicz is getting more confidence. He added that while Clemson is regressing “from a prestige standpoint,” it offers more day-to-day stability.
Kelchen also noted that Guskiewicz’s parting message was “extraordinarily rare” for the president when he cited his strained relationship with the board as the impetus for his exit.
Now, as Michigan State begins its search for its next president, so will the board’s reputation for inefficiency that could make searches difficult and raise salary demands.
“They’re going to have to pay the next president a lot of money,” Kelchen said.
