Your Cart is Empty
By Stuart Taylor, Jr., President of PFS
Since the University of Chicago paved the way in 1967 with its Kalven Committee Report, some 30 other American universities and colleges have followed suit by insisting on “institutional neutrality” on political and social issues, while also affirming their commitment to the academic freedom of faculty and students in the face of suppression from internal and/or external entities.
The case for institutional neutrality is a broadly shared perception that a university, college, president, dean, provost, or academic department should not take a public position on a political or social issue unless it threatens the very mission of the University and its value of free inquiry. The reason is that the effect could be to deter students and faculty members from expressing their own opinions lest they appear at odds with their institutions.
Campuses that have adopted the institutional neutrality principle include Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, the University of Texas System, Purdue, and Northwestern.
Princeton has not done so. And President Eisgruber has repeatedly rejected calls from groups, including Princetonians for Free Speech, that it adopt institutional neutrality.
In his May 27, 2025 Commencement address, Eisgruber detailed reasons, including this: “Some current-day proponents of the neutrality standard . . . appear to become uneasy when, for example, scholars expose and analyze the role of race, sexuality, or prejudice in society and politics.”
To the contrary, the institutional neutrality standard suggests no limit at all on what individual scholars or students can say or do. It calls for the institutions where they work to avoid taking collective positions lest they chill the freedoms of speech and thought of the scholars and students.
The chill is evidenced by, among other things, responses to our annual PFS surveys of Princeton students, the last of which shows that “52% of Princeton students would be somewhat or very uncomfortable expressing disagreement with a position that Princeton or their academic major’s department has publicly taken, with only 9% being very comfortable doing so.”
In addition, Eisgruber cites no standard to explain why or why not Princeton is taking a position.
As the Kalven Committee report said: “The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. [It] cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
In his Commencement address, Eisgruber also saidthat “though I agree with much that is said in the Kalven Report, I have never liked the language of ‘neutrality,’ partly because ‘neutral’ has multiple meanings,” with synonyms including“innocuous,” “unobjectionable,” “harmless,” “bland,” and “colorless.” He added: “‘Neutral’ can mean ‘impartial,’ which is a more precise way to capture what the Kalven Committee had in mind.”
So call it “institutional impartiality,” if you prefer. But please be clear that the principle would impose no limitation on what any individual scholar or student can say.
On Jan. 5, the University released its annual Report of the Treasurer. Following a tumultuous year for higher education across the country, the report emphasizes the University’s lab partnerships with federal departments, close ties to active-duty soldiers and veterans, and involvement in AI and public service.
The report, entitled “In the Nation’s Service,” comes after approximately $200 million in research-specific funding was suspended last year by the Trump administration, then partially reinstated over the summer.
Princeton is an undemocratic place. Its premier open deliberative body, the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC), is fraught with attempts to filter legitimate dialogue and debate between various campus interests. Indeed, as my colleague Siyeon Lee argued last fall, CPUC meetings “mostly functioned as a Q&A, the decision already made, and the damage already done.”
However, in just under two weeks, at the upcoming Feb. 9 CPUC meeting in the basement of Frist Campus Center, the University community — students, faculty, and staff — will have a rare opportunity for unfettered access to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83.
Princeton claims to care about free speech — University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has written a book about it, and maintains an official policy of institutional restraint to protect students’ freedom to form and express their own opinions. But in this era of government violence, it is no longer possible to defend free speech with an institutional restraint policy tying the University’s hands behind its back.
It is time for Princeton to deviate from the conciliatory principle of strict institutional restraint. It must stand in vigorous opposition against the cruelty of federal immigration officers, as well as other government overreaches that threaten freedom of speech for members of our community.
Ruin Miller
June 07, 2025
Can a person who is incapable of understanding the basic principle of “institutional neutrality” be a candidate for guiding any institution, let alone a major research university, let alone Princeton?
The revelation of Eisgruber’s intellectual impoverishment in this article chill me to the bone.