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
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
