Your Cart is Empty
By Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr
Originally published in Real Clear Politics
In July 2020, a Princeton University professor, Joshua Katz, wrote an article containing provocative language that generated controversy on campus. While voicing strong disagreement with that language, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber clearly and publicly stated a few days later that it was protected by Princeton’s university-wide rule on free speech. But since then, through other Princeton officials, the university has for over a year viciously attacked Professor Katz as a racist on its website and elsewhere for the exact same language. These attacks have clearly violated the Princeton free speech rule, as well as other Princeton rules.
When eight Princeton professors, acting as whistleblowers, filed a formal complaint about these attacks last October, high-ranking Princeton officials responded with a ruling that can only be described as a crude attempt to cover up the university’s violations; in the process, they eviscerated the free speech rule. The officials absurdly found that the widely disseminated presentation smearing Katz was not an “official University document” despite overwhelming public evidence that it is. They also issued a false interpretation of the free speech rule, stating dishonestly that it did not apply to Professor Katz’s language. Furthermore, under their deliberate misinterpretation, the free speech rule will no longer protect the vast majority of other statements by students and faculty that are clearly protected by its language and intent.
Frannie Block and Maya Sulkin
The Free Press
Excerpt: In 2024, David Piegaro attended a pro-Palestine rally on Princeton University’s campus as a self-described “citizen journalist.” After watching all this from a distance, Piegaro began to follow and videotape Princeton professor Max Weiss, who Piegaro recognized as a leader of a pro-Palestine faculty group, and another man wearing a suit. When Piegaro tried to enter a building with them, the man with the suit essentially shoved him down the stairs, alleges Piegaro.
In April, a New Jersey judge found Piegaro not guilty of all the charges, concluding that he might “have been unwise, or even defiant, but it does not amount to reckless disregard.” On Wednesday, Piegaro filed a lawsuit against Princeton and Strother in a federal court in New Jersey, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, use of excessive force, wrongful imprisonment, fabrication of evidence, and more.
Joel Ibabao
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The data is stark: 70 percent of Class of 2025 alumni who expect to earn above $120,000 next year say that they will not be working in the service of humanity, while 77 percent of those making under $90,000 say they will. However, the idea of working “in the service of humanity” reflected in these numbers is too narrow — earning to support one’s family and earning to give are both noble, service-oriented goals in themselves.
I agree that deciding on a career path in college means weighing different values, such as ambition, service, and the pursuit of self-understanding. While Shen acknowledges the need for students from low-income households to earn to give back to their families, by writing that “overlooking our responsibility to the public is no small error,” he shows the stigma still faced by students who are just trying to help their families and inadvertently reveals an elitist bias.
By Tal Fortgang '17
When Plato titled his account of Socrates’ trial “Apology,” he was not describing an expression of regret or remorse. The Greek word “apologia” meant something quite different: a reasoned defense, a careful explanation of one’s actions and beliefs in the face of grave accusations. For “corrupting the youth,” Socrates did not apologize in our modern sense. Instead, he offered a spirited justification of his life’s work, defending the examined life even as it led him to his death.
