Your Cart is Empty
Trajan Hammonds
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: A couple of weeks ago, at 1 a.m., I found out the National Science Foundation (NSF) Postdoctoral Fellowship I applied for was being canceled because it did not comply with Trump’s new executive order on federal funding for DEI initiatives. I did what anyone from my generation would do in a moment like this: I took to X to share my experience. It’s clear that the Trump administration’s assault against academia has begun — and ultimately students, researchers, and our country are on the losing end.
August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions?
A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other.
Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote.
Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.
Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.
Samuel J. Abrams
Minding the Campus
Excerpt: When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber turned on his fellow university leaders at an April panel discussion, all but accusing Vanderbilt and Washington University chancellors of “carrying water for the Trump administration,” he revealed the dangerous delusion gripping elite academia.
This wasn’t a debate about abstract principles. It was Eisgruber’s desperate attempt to maintain the fiction that elite universities are victims rather than perpetrators, that accountability is oppression, and that denial can substitute for leadership.
Ming Lovejoy,'82
February 28, 2025
This is a thoughtful and passionate piece, and I appreciate the frustration of losing a hard-earned opportunity due to sweeping policy changes. That said, the larger issue at hand isn’t an attack on academia itself but a long-overdue course correction in how federal funds are allocated. For years, DEI-infused programs—many prioritizing ideology over merit—have dominated higher education, often at the expense of open discourse and intellectual diversity. The Ascend fellowship, despite being open to all, explicitly tied funding to racial and identity-based criteria, making it a natural target for reforms aimed at restoring race-neutral policies in federal funding.
The concerns about endowment taxation and funding cuts are valid, but they also raise an important question: Why should taxpayers continue to subsidize institutions that increasingly seem insulated from the realities of the country they serve? If Princeton and other elite universities truly value intellectual excellence, they should prioritize funding research and postdocs based on merit, not just federal handouts.
Instead of blaming external policies, academia should take this moment to reflect on how it has alienated much of the public. The growing skepticism toward higher education isn’t just “anti-intellectualism”—it’s a reaction to an academic culture that too often dismisses dissenting viewpoints and operates in ideological silos. If scholars want broader public support, they need to reconnect with everyday Americans, engage in real debate, and make the case for their work based on its merits—not just moral appeals or accusations of political hostility. A return to true academic rigor and open inquiry will do far more to secure the future of higher education than any government program ever could.