Your Cart is Empty
Featured
By Princetonians for Free Speech
PFS original content
President Eisgruber and his administration appear to have made a very good start on the new academic year. They conducted a first-year orientation that sent all the right messages on free speech, academic freedom, respect for diverse viewpoints, and the need for the university and its departments to avoid taking institutional positions on controversial public issues. They did the same in a new website on free speech which provides clarity on the free speech rules and where students should go with questions and concerns.
Furthermore, all students received an email from the university discussing the importance of free speech, Princeton’s rules thereon, and the new website.
We hope to see continued deft handling by the administration of the resumption of raging pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests, flagrant violations of university rules, and the accelerating cacophony of what seems sure to be an extraordinarily divisive presidential campaign.
“I hope that you will lean in to this community where we have these opportunities for discussion of sensitive and hard subjects in a way that I think is rare in our society right now,” Eisgruber said on August 27, while leading for the third year an orientation session focused on the Class of 2028 and incoming transfer students. He urged them to take advantage of the “transformative” opportunity at Princeton to meet and learn from others with whom they disagree.
Eisgruber stressed that the University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression“guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”
He also seemed to come closer than ever before to endorsing the kind of institutional neutrality on contentious public issues that other schools, including Harvard and Cornell, have adopted, and that Princeton Professors including Robert P. George, Emmanuel Bourbouhakis and others have advocated. He said: “There will come a time, I suspect, when some of you want the University to issue a statement endorsing some position that you cherish or condemning some practice that you abhor. You might ask me for a statement, and, if you do, I will almost certainly refuse because free speech presupposes self-reliance.”
Joining Eisgruber in the discussion and in warmly welcoming new students was Vice President for Student Life W. Rochelle Calhoun, She had faced a demand on May 3 for her resignation by 128 faculty members in a letter to the Daily Princetonian after she had issued a letter accusing students who occupied Clio Hall of “abusive” treatment of University staff members” in “an escalation ... into unlawful behavior that created a dangerous situation for protesters, University staff, and law enforcement.”
At the August 27 orientation, Calhoun urged students to visit the University’s new Protests and Free Expression website, which she said “gathers all of the information you need to know about how we actually exercise our right to free speech.” It also specifies the campus locations where protests are not allowed, including the lawn in front of Nassau Hall.
As this academic year starts, we hope that Princeton’s administration will consider the PFS Top Ten action items, designed to embed into the everyday experience and outlook of all students, faculty and administrators those core principles that inform Princeton’s free speech and academic freedom rules. One of those items was for Princeton to commit to a robust orientation on free speech every year.
While we applaud the actions of Princeton at the beginning of this school year, more needs to be done to build on this start. We note that this week Princeton was ranked near the bottom, 231 out of 251 colleges surveyed, in the highly respected annual free speech survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
And we dare hope that the disturbing events on campuses across the country since the barbaric Hamas murders of more than 1,200 people last October 7 have given the leaders of Princeton and other universities a better understanding of the dire need for reform of higher education.
Samuel J. Abrams
American Enterprise Institute
Excerpt: In response to the Trump Administration’s continued attacks on higher education, leaders of some of the most prominent colleges and universities are pushing back—albeit hypocritically. Nearly 500 college presidents and deans signed an open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” Without proper context, the letter is quite reasonable.
Consider three well-known cases where presidents did not promote open inquiry and the pursuit of truth. At Princeton, like so many other schools, the influence of identity politics was so powerful that potential faculty hires and entire streams of inquiry were not possible, and areas of research would not be supported if they did not conform to expected progressive political norms and expectations.
Luke Grippo
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In March, the Princeton University Board of Trustees voted to approve the University operating budget for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. For the first time in three years, the total operating budget was not shared in this announcement. Now, a letter from Provost Jennifer Rexford to the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) has revealed the total operating budget to be $3.5 billion — nearly a half billion increase from last year’s budget.
Accompanying this letter is the CPUC Report of the Priorities Committee to the President, with an introductory letter from Rexford to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, containing a set of recommendations for budget spending. However, these numbers are still subject to change, Rexford noted in the letter.
Bill Hewitt
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: I write as a concerned alum with a long Princeton memory to openly and ardently oppose a dangerous proposal to amend the Council of the Princeton University Community Charter. University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 charged the Committee on Rights and Rules to “review the role and procedures of the Judicial Committee.” Their ensuing recommendation would strip the CPUC Judicial Committee of its jurisdiction to hear and decide initial complaints of serious University rule violations, as well as severely curtail the right of appeal of University community members at large.
