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.
Isaac Barsoum
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Leftists at Princeton cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk — at least, that’s what you would think if you’ve been reading the Opinion section of this newspaper lately. On Sept. 17, Tigers for Israel President Maximillian Meyer ’27 declared that Princeton’s progressives exhibit “a willingness to cheer violence itself.” Princeton Tory Publisher Zach Gardner ’26 didn’t go quite so far, but did say that students “treat bloodshed flippantly,” at least in the context of Kirk’s assassination.
Here’s one problem: large portions of both their arguments rest on evidence drawn from Fizz. For the uninitiated, Fizz is a campus social media app where any Princeton student can say anything at all, true or false, behind the veil of anonymity. It is remarkable that I have to say this: Fizz is not real life.
Cynthia Torres
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: About three-quarters of the way into an interview with The Daily Princetonian, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 made a bold pronouncement: “American universities are the best that they’ve ever been.”
Eisgruber has been in the business of speaking up for universities since the beginning of the Trump administration, which has put unprecedented pressure on Princeton and its peer institutions. His new book, “Terms of Respect,” argues, as the book’s subtitle reads, “how colleges get free speech right.” Despite the perception of intolerance on American college campuses, Eisgruber writes, colleges still host thriving and robust discourse.
By Marisa Hirschfield ‘27
On September 17th, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen delivered the annual Constitution Day Lecture in McCosh 50. The lecture, co-hosted by the James Madison Program and the Program in Law and Normative Thinking, was entitled “Our Civil Rights Revolution.” Professor Gersen discussed the history of affirmative action and the evolving meaning of civil rights.
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.