Your Cart is Empty
By Edward L. Yingling, ’70, Secretary/Treasurer and Stuart Taylor, Jr. ’70, President, Princetonians for Free Speech
The Daily Princetonian launched another lengthy McCarthyist attack on a Princeton professor on February 11, exactly one week after its original attack article on him, by publishing prominently an insipid, as well as cruel, personal attack framed as an opinion piece by Princeton senior Braden Flax, under a grossly misleading headline. Meanwhile, the newspaper has not even acknowledged a February 7 letter to the editor from a former long-term Princeton senior lecturer that criticized the February 4 article as “attempted character assassination.”
The Daily Princetonian’s February 4 attack on Professor Joshua Katz resulted from an unprecedented, seven-month investigation of his personal life. The attack followed an editorial in which the newspaper denounced the professor and complained the Princeton Administration had not taken take action against him for an article he had written that was clearly protected by Princeton’s established free speech policy. Katz’s letter had criticized parts of a letter sent by over 300 Princeton faculty and staff making allegations of racism at Princeton and containing numerous demands on the Administration. In an editorial on February 6, Princetonians for Free Speech accused the Daily Princetonian of blatant McCarthyism for undertaking an unprecedented investigation of a professor at the same time it was calling on the Administration to take action against him for expressing views the newspaper strongly disagrees with. Our editorial pointed out that this effort by the newspaper is designed to send a message to faculty and students that if you dare express views the newspaper disagrees with you are in danger of being personally attacked.
The Flax opinion piece, while saying that the “claims have not been definitively confirmed,” then proceeds to rehash and exaggerate the charges in the February 4 article and throw in some nasty name-calling and amateur psychology as well. It also carries on the original article’s practice of attack by innuendo. We doubt very seriously the Daily Princetonian would have printed an opinion piece on any professor of whose views it approved that contained such name calling and personal attacks.
The Flax attack also continues the original hit piece’s attack on freedom of speech by suggesting that a professor who dares to disagree forcefully with the type of campus orthodoxy endorsed by the Daily Princetonian should not have been allowed to “ascend to a position of prominence and influence” at the university.
While the Daily Princetonian continues its attacks, it has still not answered the key question we posed in our previous Princetonians for Free Speech editorial: Show us where in the history of the newspaper you have undertaken such a lengthy investigation into the personal life of a professor whose views were acceptable to you. If you cannot do that, then it is proof positive that the investigation and the on-going attacks are politically motivated and corrupt.
Another question: What does the Daily Princetonian’s Board of Trustees think of the transformation of the paper by its current leadership into an ideologically driven vehicle to squash free speech and academic freedom?
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
