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
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.
