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.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
In April 1995, University maintenance crews spent two days cleaning “walkways, benches, plazas and walls on campus,” working to remove not dirt or debris, but simple sidewalk chalk. The chalk drawings, according to a report from The Daily Princetonian, consisted of “pro-gay messages” written by hand during Pride Week. After the removal, advocates were rightly in uproar. Following the incident, the University, claiming that the discrepancy had transpired because of “cross-office confusion,” clarified its chalking policy — it was henceforth banned, in all cases.
Three decades on, chalk at Princeton has found itself relegated to dusty trays in classrooms and lecture halls. Hardly anyone — students, activists, artists, campus organizations, candidates, schoolchildren — chalks University grounds anymore. Simply put, the University’s ban has worked. But the question remains: Why is Princeton so afraid of chalk?
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
The University has implemented a new limit on the number of Undergraduate Student Government (USG), Graduate Student Government, and Council of the Princeton University Committee (CPUC) student representatives allowed to attend faculty meetings.
In an email to student leaders obtained by The Daily Princetonian, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Ian Deas wrote that the new changes will go into effect at the Sept. 14 faculty meeting and each constituency will be able to send a maximum of two observers to a meeting. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty do not specify the number of observers permitted from the student governments or CPUC.
