December 07, 2023
5 min read
by Bill Hewitt ‘74
A
recent Princetonians for Free Speech opinion essay finds the outlook at Princeton “bleak for the [John Witherspoon] statue, for the memory of Witherspoon, and perhaps also that of other founders of the United States.” But this controversy has far more at stake for Princeton.
Consider four matters of great concern. They go to whether decision-makers at the University are transparent and responsive. Moreover, these matters go to whether these leaders further Princeton’s missions to pursue truth and transmit knowledge to society.
December 04, 2023
1 min read
Brett Tomlinson
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: Amid a tumultuous semester of often polarized demonstrations by pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups on college campuses, Amaney Jamal, the Palestinian American dean of Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, and Keren Yarhi-Milo, the Israeli American dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, penned an Oct. 30 New York Times op-ed calling for universities to be centers of free speech and “hold difficult conversations without fear of retaliation.”
This week, Jamal and Yarhi-Milo put some of their ideas into practice, discussing the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the history of diplomacy in the region, and the role universities can play in adding nuance to the discourse at a pair of public conversations, Nov. 28 at Princeton and Nov. 30 at Columbia.
Read More December 04, 2023
1 min read
Coco Gong and Judy Gao
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The long-running debate about whether or not Universities should release statements on national and global events debate has been thrust into the limelight with recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action and abortion, as well as international conflicts that impact members of the student body. The recent conflict in Israel and Gaza, for instance, has placed considerable pressure on universities across the nation regarding their official statements, and different University leaders have taken different stances on how to respond.
Read More 
Seth Akabas '78
August 04, 2023
I can accept that the right to speech is broader than is the right to teach, but even the circumscription of the right to teach should be limited to egregious cases. For example, if Mr. Shoval had uttered such hateful lies as Arab people “harvest organs of” Israelis, have an “unquenchable thirst" for Israeli "blood,” and are “genocidal,” or if Mr. Shoval had denied the facts of the connection of Arab people to lands where they live as “fictional indigenity [sic]”, and justified that denial in overtly racist terms, such as how easily or not people are susceptible to sunburn – as an honoree of the Princeton University English Department in fact said about Jewish Israelis, and had never severed himself from or disavowed those statements, then a circumscription of his right to teach might be appropriate (even while defending his right to speak utter lies and hate). A more than decade old affiliation with an organization, which affiliation has been long severed, however, should not be a grounds for denying the ability to teach.