Your Cart is Empty
Cynthia Torres and Luke Grippo
Daily Princetonian
On July 31, federal judge Zahid N. Quraishi issued an opinion mostly denying a motion to dismiss a civil lawsuit brought by David Piegaro ’25. The motion was jointly filed by Princeton University and Kenneth Strother, the University’s police chief, who are the defendants in the case. The ruling sends 12 of the 13 claims against the defendants to discovery, where the parties will gather evidence before a potential trial.
The lawsuit stems from an altercation between Piegaro and Strother that occurred during the 2024 Gaza Solidarity encampment. Piegaro was charged with simple assault and trespassing after the incident. In April 2025, he was found not guilty of simple assault while the trespassing charge was dropped earlier that year in February. Quraishi’s opinion allowed most of the claims Piegaro made to proceed.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
In the battle between Harvard and the federal government, Princeton is siding with Harvard.
On July 22, the University signed an amicus curiae brief supporting Harvard’s suit against multiple executive branch agencies over research funding cuts in a federal appeals court. The brief was joined by 35 other research universities and colleges, including the rest of the Ivy League.
The good news is that the percentage of colleges and universities earning FIRE's "red light" (bad) rating has reached a low of 13 percent — a 55 percent drop since the "Spotlight" report began in 2006, and a 1.5 percent drop from last year. The bad news is that Princeton is among that 13 percent. Princeton is still found to maintain policies that "clearly and substantially" restrict free expression.
With the new academic year approaching, I encourage professors who teach on controversial matters to include on their syllabi a statement like the one I include on mine:
“As set forth in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities section 1.1.3, Princeton University strictly respects the right to free speech of everyone in our community of scholars and learners. That right is sacrosanct in this class and is possessed by faculty and students alike. With the aim of advancing and deepening everyone’s understanding of the issues addressed in the course, students are urged to speak their minds, explore ideas and arguments, play devil’s advocate, and engage in civil but robust discussions. There is no thought or language policing. We expect students to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse—a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments—but no ideas or positions are out of bounds.”
