Princetonians for Free Speech

Eisgruber also discussed an August letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon entitled “A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards.” 

The letter calls on every postsecondary institution to answer questions around ensuring merit-based admissions, protection against “unruly and violent protestors,” and protection from foreign influences, among other topics, before Dec. 31. Eisgruber outlined key principles that guide the University’s responses to such requests, including the protection of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. “I would anticipate we will answer, but we will answer in a way that is consistent with what we’ve said on these important topics previously,” he said.

A day after winning election to represent Pennsylvania’s 3rd congressional district in the House of Representatives, Chris Rabb ’92 appeared in a video on Instagram bashing Yale’s negotiations with the Trump administration.

Rabb, a Democrat and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is one of a host of alumni who have rebuked Yale’s decision to pursue a voluntary agreement with the Department of Justice over investigations into its admissions processes. In the Wednesday night video, which was posted from the accounts of several progressive organizations based on college campuses, Rabb noted Yale’s billions of dollars in endowment money and posed a question to his alma mater.

But beyond the difficult conversations this tragedy has encouraged me to have, I’ve been struck by how this story unfolded: through the determined reporting of student journalists, working primarily through the Sun’s editorial pages, who actively challenged their administration’s silence. The Sun’s efforts to unmask the defendants demonstrate how independent newspapers hold their institutions accountable — particularly amid declining trust in traditional media outlets.

Now, more than ever, student journalists have a responsibility to challenge institutional failure within their campus’ gilded walls. Despite both newspapers being independent from their universities, it is difficult to imagine our paper taking a firm position should a similar event happen on our own campus.

Twelve attorneys general have joined Florida in asking the Supreme Court to uphold a state law that would limit what public college and university professors can say about race and gender in the classroom. 

The law, called the Stop WOKE Act, was passed in 2022 but quickly blocked by a lower court and then struck down by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in July. In his petition to the highest court, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asks the justices to determine “whether public university professors have a special status under the First Amendment, such that the speech they express in the course of their official duties, unlike the official-duty speech of all other public employees, is protected by the First Amendment from regulation by their employer, the state.”

Let’s say you’re driving home and protesters in support of climate legislation shut down the street, extending your commute. It’s quite reasonable to feel frustrated, to even honk or curse. You might wonder why of all days, of all streets, the protesters had to choose this one. If you instead decide that their cause is now wrong, you’ve likely made that judgment on a faulty basis.

When evaluating a political demand, the relevant criteria are its merits and demerits. Why would your experience of inconvenience change your view on the proposal? Yet if popular Sidechat posts are any evidence, countless students have made that leap.

At Columbia, the cost of disagreement is high, and most of us would rather not pay it.

The longer I spend within the Columbia gates, its celebrated commitment to open discourse begins to look like a carefully maintained illusion. When confronted with an opposing opinion, we are quick to presume what its author must stand for, which political camp they belong to, and whether they even deserve to be heard. For a student body so righteously devoted to questioning authority, we are exceptionally protective of our own.