Your Cart is Empty
Today the following letter was sent to President Eisgruber from the Princetonians for Free Speech Executive Committee regarding the protests and event disruption that occurred on April 7th in McCosh Hall:
April 9, 2025
Dear President Eisgruber:
We, the officers of Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), are writing to express our organization’s very deep concerns about the disruption of the program featuring former Israel Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on April 7 and actions of severe antisemitism during and after that program.
As you know, PFS is a Princeton alumni organization created to promote the values of free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity at Princeton. Over 7,500 Princeton alumni subscribe to our email updates and regular reports. This large number, a number that is growing rapidly, is a testament to the concern of alumni about these values.
We appreciate the statement you put out on April 8 condemning the disruption and antisemitism. But more needs to be done.
First, given the recent history of protests at Princeton after the terrorist attack on Israel and incidents of antisemitism on campus, it seems remarkable that Princeton was not better prepared to stop what occurred on April 7. The appearance of a former Israeli Prime Minister might be expected to generate disruptive and potentially violent actions. The preparations and the tepid response that night were both clearly inadequate. As just one example, why were students allowed to wear masks to hide their identity in the room where the event took place?
It is critical now that the University’s actions taken against those who broke university rules and First Amendment protections be swift and appropriate to the severity of what was done. PFS applauded you for the strong message you delivered at the commencement of this year’s entering class about the importance of free speech and Princeton’s rules thereon. However, rules are meaningless unless enforced. Clearly, some members of the Princeton community, including students and faculty, do not respect the rules and do not believe they will be enforced. It is vital that appropriate punishment be given in this case, including suspension and possibly expulsion. It has been clearly demonstrated that a lack of real enforcement of the rules on various campuses, including Princeton, has encouraged more rule-breaking disruption.
Even before the events of April 7, Princeton was among those universities receiving extra scrutiny by the public and policy makers. With this new development, we fear that the reputation of Princeton has been badly tarnished in ways that will have severe long-term repercussions. Strong action is required.
Sincerely,
Stuart Taylor, Jr., PFS President
Edward Yingling, PFS Secretary
Todd Rulon-Miller, PFS Treasurer
Leslie Spencer, PFS Vice-Chair
Thank you for speaking out on the University’s inadequate preparation for something that was foreseeable based on events since October 7. And I strongly agree with challenging why the protestors were permitted to wear masks. I don’t think the founders envisioned free speech as anonymous speech or violence.
Thank you for expressing these concerns. I am interested in hearing the response, if any.
An annual survey assessing freedom of expression and freedom from threats/intimidation on campus should be conducted. Trustees should review results and hold president accountable for addressing any problems. Freedom of expression is mission critical. If president unable to achieve must be replaced.
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.
Kevin Toner ‘74
April 12, 2025
This letter is spot on but perhaps too measured and respectful.
Columbia’s reputation has been destroyed by its enabling of antisemitism.
Princeton needs to become a beacon of safety and righteous discipline.
Be the light! Expel immediately. Enable law enforcement. Banish the interlopers.