Your Cart is Empty
Hayk Yengibaryan and Christopher Bao
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In his annual State of the University letter published on Jan. 29, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 defended the University’s endowment, its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, and institutional restraint. Though his letter does not, according to him, address the recent orders and policies from the Trump administration targeting universities, much of what Eisgruber wrote addressed attacks on higher education in recent years.
August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions?
A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other.
Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote.
Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.
Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.
Samuel J. Abrams
Minding the Campus
Excerpt: When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber turned on his fellow university leaders at an April panel discussion, all but accusing Vanderbilt and Washington University chancellors of “carrying water for the Trump administration,” he revealed the dangerous delusion gripping elite academia.
This wasn’t a debate about abstract principles. It was Eisgruber’s desperate attempt to maintain the fiction that elite universities are victims rather than perpetrators, that accountability is oppression, and that denial can substitute for leadership.
Dennis Doherty
February 07, 2025
I continue to be amazed that Princeton is sitting on a $34.1B endowment fund while arguing in favor of taxpayer-funded student loan relief. In a previous note in the Alumni magazine, President Eisgruber lamented the lack of support for taxpayer-funded relief of student loan debt for those who had not finished their degree programs.
IMHO, Princeton has been part and parcel of the abuse of the well-intended student loan program which enriched both the banks and the universities. It was intended to enable more students to be able to manage the costs of higher education but, along with the increased demand came increased tuition, a windfall for Princeton among others. I guess that’s just capitalism – it’s a business. And the down side of that was that in many cases, young people cam out with degrees that would not lead to career paths that would easily enable them to repay those loans – a reflection on the poor quality of student advisement while young and frequently uninformed students took on a financial burden in many cases comparable to a house mortgage.
And then to argue that the taxpayers should bear this burden! While Princeton sits on a $34.1B endowment! I am stunned at the audacity of demanding carpenters, plumbers, laborers, etc., pick up the bill for Princeton’s greed!
Again, IMHO, the students do indeed deserve student loan debt relief – but at the cost of the banks and universities that abused such a well-intentioned program.