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.
Tal Fortgang ‘17
When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”
Collin Binkley
Associated Press
Some of the country’s most prestigious colleges are enrolling record numbers of low-income students — a growing admissions priority in the absence of affirmative action.
At Princeton University, this year’s freshman class has more low-income students than ever. One in four are eligible for federal Pell grants, which are scholarships reserved for students with the most significant financial need. That’s a leap from two decades ago, when fewer than 1 in 10 were eligible. “The only way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to be intentional about it,” Princeton President ChristopherEisgruber said in a statement. “Socioeconomic diversity will increase if and only if college presidents make it a priority.”
Angela Smith
Princetonians for Free Speech
In the basement of Robertson Hall on a crisp December evening, I had the privilege of attending a remarkable student-led event at Princeton University—a panel hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and supported by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The December 3 discussion centered on Fizz, an anonymous social media app for Princetonians that serves as a hub for commentary, debates and memes about campus life.
From my vantage point as Executive Director of PFS, the significance of this gathering extended well beyond its specific topic. What unfolded that evening represented one of the largest—and one of the most politically diverse—assemblies of student free-speech advocates in recent memory. Roughly forty Princetonians filled the room, not to hear a Supreme Court Justice or renowned author, but to engage sincerely with one another about speech, anonymity, and responsibility.
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.