Your Cart is Empty
Last Friday, the following letter was sent to President Eisgruber from the Princetonians for Free Speech Executive Committee regarding further action after the protests and event disruption that occurred on April 7th in McCosh Hall, and preparatory measures for upcoming campus events:
April 18, 2025
Dear President Eisgruber,
On April 9, we wrote to you regarding our deep concerns about the disruption of the program featuring former Israel Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on April 7 and actions of antisemitism during and after that program.
Princetonians for Free Speech is an alumni organization created to promote free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity at Princeton. Over 7,500 Princeton alumni subscribe to our email updates and regular reports, a number that is growing steadily.
In our letter, we congratulated you on your statement of April 8 condemning the disruption and antisemitic expression. We noted that more needed to be done. We stated that the planning for the protest at the event and the handling of the event by Princeton officials was clearly inadequate and that swift action needed to be taken against those who broke rules.
As you know, on Tuesday, April 22, Yechiel Leiter, the Ambassador to the U.S. from Israel is scheduled to speak on campus. We are most concerned that this will generate another attempt to disrupt an event and more antisemitic attacks. Our contacts on campus say that it appears that nothing has been done by the Princeton Administration that would deter such actions. We are aware that investigations, including interviewing those present at the April 7 event, are taking place, but it seems likely that this will be a long, drawn-out process. There has been no statement relating to the University’s procedures followed on April 7 being reviewed or strengthened.
If Princeton does not act decisively in the next few days with respect to the April 22 event, it is possible that the shocking disruptions of April 7 will be repeated. If that happens the impact on Princeton’s reputation and finances will be dramatic. There has already been much media criticism of Princeton over April 7, including in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal and in a column by the respected Jonathan Turley. We have heard from many alumni who are angry that the events of April 7 were allowed to happen.
Princeton’s rules are clear, but they are not being enforced. Princeton’s Statement on Freedom of Expression (contained in Section 1.1.3 of its regulations) states that “…the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.” Certainly, on April 7, the University completely failed in that “solemn responsibility.”
Princeton’s Guidelines and Policies on its webpage on Protests and Free Expression states: “A wide range of protest activity is allowed, but protests must not create a hostile environment (or otherwise violate the law), or significantly disrupt University operations and events.” Clearly the protestors on April 7 violated that policy. A hostile environment for Jewish students exists.
While action should have been taken sooner, there is still time to avoid a repeat of April 7. Princeton should immediately issue a statement warning people that its rules will be strictly enforced, including arrests, and containing the specific points listed below.
Pending a more comprehensive rule, Princeton should at least announce that no masks will be allowed to be worn at any protest of the April 22 event. Princeton has every right to do this, and in fact many universities have enacted general no-mask rules.
Princeton should announce that while protestors have the right to express their views, they do not have the right to shout and make loud banging noises that are disruptive to the program, as took place on April 7. The April 7 protestors clearly violated Princeton’s policy on “Protests and Dissident Activities,” which states: “Activities that take place in the vicinity of University classrooms, laboratories, libraries, the chapel, offices, and similar facilities must be conducted in a manner that respects the necessity for maintaining a reasonable degree of quiet in such areas.”
Princeton should announce that there will be zero tolerance for any antisemitic statements or symbols directed at students or other participants in the event and that the identity of anyone making such statements will be immediately noted.
Princeton should state its rules relating to protests up front and do away with the series of warnings in the room of the event. Those entering the event should be given a copy of the rules. Unlike on April 7, Princeton officials should not give repeated warnings to protestors, which only served to further delay the program.
Princeton should announce that the person or persons responsible for pulling the fire alarm on April 7 will be expelled.
Princeton’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine should be warned not to promote activities that will violate rules, and its actions should be monitored to make sure it is not organizing and promoting such activities. The role of the chapter in the April 7 events should be a focus of the current investigation. There is strong evidence that this chapter did promote activities that broke rules and created a very hostile environment for Jewish students. There is email evidence that chapter members celebrated the pulling of the fire alarm and may have been complicit in it.
Finally, Princeton should make sure there is a sufficient number of university officials and police at the event to swiftly address any problems that might disrupt the event.
President Eisgruber, your strong statements on free speech, including during the orientation last Fall, and Princeton’s rules provide a solid foundation to protect free speech on campus. You have been very clear in condemning antisemitism. If there is yet another disruption and/or more antisemitic attacks around the April 22 event, any remaining credibility Princeton may have on those issues will disappear.
Sincerely Yours,
Stuart Taylor, PFS President
Ed Yingling, PFS Secretary
Leslie Spencer, PFS Vice-Chair
Todd Rulon-Miller, PFS Treasurer
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.
Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal
New York Post
Excerpt: A controversial Princeton professor with strong ties to the Iranian regime has quietly stepped down from the Ivy League school, following a campaign from dissidents to remove him.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist, retired from his position after 15 years as the head of the school’s Program on Science and Global Security on June 1, according to an announcement listing retiring employees on Princeton’s website. The professor is controversial for being heavily involved in Iran’s chemical and nuclear programs beginning in 2004, long before the country was known to have been building up its nuclear arsenal, according to German journalist Bruno Schirra.
