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.
In April 1995, University maintenance crews spent two days cleaning “walkways, benches, plazas and walls on campus,” working to remove not dirt or debris, but simple sidewalk chalk. The chalk drawings, according to a report from The Daily Princetonian, consisted of “pro-gay messages” written by hand during Pride Week. After the removal, advocates were rightly in uproar. Following the incident, the University, claiming that the discrepancy had transpired because of “cross-office confusion,” clarified its chalking policy — it was henceforth banned, in all cases.
Three decades on, chalk at Princeton has found itself relegated to dusty trays in classrooms and lecture halls. Hardly anyone — students, activists, artists, campus organizations, candidates, schoolchildren — chalks University grounds anymore. Simply put, the University’s ban has worked. But the question remains: Why is Princeton so afraid of chalk?
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
The University has implemented a new limit on the number of Undergraduate Student Government (USG), Graduate Student Government, and Council of the Princeton University Committee (CPUC) student representatives allowed to attend faculty meetings.
In an email to student leaders obtained by The Daily Princetonian, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Ian Deas wrote that the new changes will go into effect at the Sept. 14 faculty meeting and each constituency will be able to send a maximum of two observers to a meeting. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty do not specify the number of observers permitted from the student governments or CPUC.
